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...
Delhi High Court mandates reassessment in Praveen Bansal vs ITO, emphasizing fair hearing and verification of claims under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards bogus purchases unsustainable if the alleged bogus purchases show gross profit higher than the regular gross profit.
Delhi High Court held that order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act without dealing with the request for accommodation and according without hearing the petitioner is in violation of principles of nature justice and hence liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustained.
ITAT Bangalore has quashed assessment order in case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences against ACIT. Grounds for invalidation were non-service of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of Income-tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that as there was no malafide or deliberate in action on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with delay of 387 days before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it was directed to CIT(A) to condone the delay.
ITAT Delhi held that addition in case of bogus purchases is restricted to the extent of 25% of the purchases. As lower authorities made addition of 25% of bogus purchase, the same is sustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening of assessment in absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment and without any new tangible material is untenable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
In the case of Amrita Jhaveri Vs DCIT, ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident individuals are not required to disclose assets held outside India in their Indian income tax returns. The ITAT quashed the re-assessment order based on vague and general reasons, stating that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
