Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a return filed under section 148 remains valid even if delayed. Failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an Updated Return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Secti...
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 Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessme...
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...
The issue was whether reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an unauthorized officer renders the entire assessment invalid. It ruled that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured and quashed the assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted. The only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
The ITAT held that reopening was invalid as it was based on the same material already examined during the original assessment. It ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a concluded issue.
With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
The petitioner’s claim that delay was caused by a tax consultant was rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding was not perverse and required no interference.
The court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
The case examined whether bank deposits could be taxed as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies only to entries in books of account, leading to deletion of the addition.
The case examined the validity of reassessment notices issued beyond the permissible period. The Court ruled that such notices are invalid in light of binding precedent, leading to quashing of the entire reassessment.
The Tribunal validated reopening under Section 147 based on credible post-search information. Proper procedure under Section 148A was followed, making reassessment lawful.
