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 : Bombay HC quashed Section 148 reopening for AY 2013-14, holding Section 43CA was inapplicable and stamp duty valuation alone could...
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 : 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 Bangalore held that once the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed differs from the stamp value adopted by the officer, AO has to adopt the procedures contemplated u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed.
As noticed earlier, the provisions of sec. 147 of the Act makes it mandatory that the AO should be clear about the alleged escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening of assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that based on incriminating materials unearthed during the course of search, proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act needs to be initiated. Hence, initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 illegal and void ab initio.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to CIT(A) since CIT(A) failed to examined the validity of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Assessee argued that AO lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 as the information derived from the search should had been assessed under Section 153C.
ITAT Mumbai held that validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 is six year which expires on 31.03.2022. Accordingly, notice issued on 29.07.2022 u/s. 148 is barred by limitation.
Assessee had not challenged the validity of reopening, though for the first time, assessee had challenged the action of AO by taking plea that AO should have assessed assessee under section 153C and not section 147/148.
Madras High Court granted stay on payment of 10% of tax demand since the respondent/ department failed to furnish proof against alleged demand. Accordingly, order set aside and stay granted.
Assessee had given reasons that as per the previous counsel, late Shri R.R. Jain (C.A.) had given advice no separate appeal against the order passed u/s 263 was filed before ITAT.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance with the show cause notice and directed to restore the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
