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...
The burden lies on the assessee to explain each day of the delay, and the tribunal underscored that the appellant did not substantiate her claims adequately. The reasons for the delay were deemed not bona fide and reasonable, leading to the rejection of the appeal for condonation of delay.
ITAT Bangalore held that the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt of preference shares shown by the assessee in its books of accounts as sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income/loss at the time of sale only.
Delhi High Court nullifies reassessment under IT Act, citing lack of independent application of mind. In-depth analysis of Sahu Exports vs. ACIT judgment.
Bombay High Court held that plea of defect in the notice cannot be accepted as it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee “clearly understood” what was the purport and import of notice issued under section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act.
HC court clarified that petitioner has right to raise jurisdictional issue during section 148 proceedings, and section 149(1) allows challenging a notice issued without jurisdiction.
The court found that the impugned order’s conclusion about the petitioner not filing a reply was inconsistent with the documented evidence, rendering the order unsustainable.
Karnataka High Court rules against income tax reassessment after 3 years. Case: Pramila Mahadev Tadkase Vs ITO. Details of the judgment and legal implications.
Reassessment invalid for borrowed satisfaction, reasons to believe not adverting to the failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fairly all material facts, and also the change of opinion.
Final Assessment Order lacked jurisdiction, as it was issued without providing the petitioner with a draft Assessment Order under Section 144B(1)(xvi).
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment invoking provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act inspired from a review and a change of opinion is liable to be quashed and set aside.
