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...
Bombay High Court held that different view by Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) in case of another Applicant cannot be ground for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer having no jurisdiction over the assessee and consequent assessment made u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is void and bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of interest free security deposit sustained as the same is not refunded to the Developer even after lapse of more than seven years by merely stating that the Developer had not provided completion certificate.
The appeal in the case of Simple Singh vs. ITO was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12
Agasthya Auto Products LLP filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal raised multiple grounds, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Calcutta High Court asserts that the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination and failure to provide copies of evidence render an order invalid under the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court orders a fresh investigation in the Rajnish Yadav Vs ITO case, pertaining to allegations of bogus purchases under the Income Tax Act, citing lack of furnished information to the petitioner.
In the case of Kothari Credit (India) Limited v. Union of India and others, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain tax inadvertently paid by the wife needs to be refunded with interest and the same needs to be recovered from the assessee as the same transaction cannot be charged to tax twice.
ITAT Kolkata held that once the jurisdiction of the assessee is transferred from Delhi to Kolkata, every action for all the assessment year lies with ITO, Kolkata. Accordingly, notice issued u/s 148 by ITO, New Delhi is bad and illegal.
