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 : 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 : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
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...
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already made additions on the exact issue for which reassessment was reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal held that documents relating to payments made to suppliers such as TS MARKFED and Sri Venkateshwara Agencies required proper verification. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Pune ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to fully verify expenditure claims unsupported by vouchers. The Tribunal held that random verification was insufficient where substantial cash expenses were claimed.
Pune ITAT remanded the matter after the assessee explained that responses meant for the assessment appeal were inadvertently uploaded in the penalty appeal portal.
ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2022 Scheme. Notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was held invalid and quashed.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court followed the Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessment notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A. The petition was disposed of without quashing the proceedings.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplantation and continuous dialysis treatment.
