Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has remitted reassessment cases for fresh consideration after the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, leavi...
Income Tax : This article explains why reassessment proceedings may be invalid if the Assessing Officer merely relies on Investigation Wing rep...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Humble Representation for modification of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act relating to Sanction for issue of Notice under sec. 14...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune quashed a Section 148 notice based on vague information and directed deletion of a ₹51.35 lakh addition for lack of su...
Income Tax : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore remanded a Section 69A addition after holding that an APMC commission agent's entire sale proceeds could not be tre...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : The department has identified high-risk cases through its Insight Portal for AYs 2022-25. It directs officers to initiate reassess...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Income Tax : Explore the latest guidelines for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand key procedures, amendme...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
ITAT Hyderabad rules Excel sheets from an accountant’s laptop aren’t ‘books’ or ‘assets,’ quashing reassessment notices against Exel Rubber for mechanical sanction and insufficient evidence.
ITAT Kolkata quashes assessment for Lily Sarkar (AY 2011-12), ruling that the S. 148 notice issued to the deceased assessee was invalid. Consequential proceedings were void as per S. 159 and judicial precedents.
ribunal held that penalty under section 271B cannot be levied without books of account. Only penalty u/s 271A for non-maintenance applies, reduced from ₹1.5 lakh to ₹25,000.
ITAT Hyderabad ruled that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) doesn’t trigger Capital Gains Tax u/s 2(47)(v) when possession isn’t legally delivered, relying on SC/HC precedent.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment show cause notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after 18.06.2022 i.e. after surviving time’ would be invalid and accordingly, notice is quashed and set aside.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi has set aside a significant tax addition against Maple Destinations, ruling that the reassessment was based on uncorroborated, retracted statements and a denial of the assessee’s right to cross-examination, which violated principles of natural justice.
High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Section 148 notice for AY 2019-20, confirming that only faceless AOs can initiate reassessment, ensuring compliance with CBDT-mandated procedures.
ITAT Mumbai set aside DRP directions for Celestial Vision Ltd, ruling the DRP mixed up facts, failed to address 44BB applicability, and mistakenly discussed Section 147 reopening procedures.
In the instant case, the grievance of assessee was directed against the impugned notices dated 24.03.2025 and 28.05.2025 issued under Section 148A(1); the order passed under Section 148A(3); and the consequential notice issued under Section 148, all pertaining to AY 2019-20.
The Kerala High Court ruled that taxpayers must first challenge the validity of a reassessment notice lacking a Document Identification Number (DIN) with the Assessing Officer.
