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...
elying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld ITAT’s finding that reopening based on reappraisal of existing records is invalid. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Bangalore held that the entire cost of construction claimed by the assessee while computing capital gains on sale of property could not be outrightly disallowed merely due to lack of complete supporting documents.
The ITAT Bangalore held that reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on an incorrect assumption that the assessee had claimed bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid under Section 149. As a result, the entire reassessment based on alleged accommodation entries was quashed as void ab initio.
ITAT Bangalore quashed reassessment for AY 2017-18, holding notice issued on 12-04-2024 time-barred under first proviso to Sec.149(1), despite prior 148A proceedings.
The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding that the assessee’s conditional withdrawal of reopening grounds was not properly considered. The matter was directed for fresh adjudication to address legal and factual issues.
The Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
