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...
The Tribunal ruled that supplying only a summary of reasons is insufficient in law. The failure to furnish recorded reasons vitiated the entire reassessment.
The tribunal held that penalty for non-appearance cannot be sustained when reasonable cause exists. Ignorance of proceedings and factual circumstances justified relief.
ITAT Mumbai held delay and ex-parte orders cannot override justice. ₹64.8 lakh addition u/s 69 set aside; case remanded for fresh examination, giving assessee opportunity to submit evidence.
The CIT(A) upheld additions without discussing merits or legal issues. The Tribunal ruled that a speaking order is mandatory and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The reassessment notice issued within four years was wrongly quashed by applying amended law. The Tribunal restored the matter, emphasizing correct application of applicable provisions.
ITAT ruled that failure to file a return does not justify taxing income without allowing legitimate deductions. The case was sent back to the AO to consider exemptions and deductions available in records.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 could not survive where the Section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices were barred by limitation and the resulting reassessment was void.
The Court held that the notice issued after six years from the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation. The reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The case examined whether late submission of Form 67 can deny FTC. The tribunal held that filing before assessment completion is sufficient and directed allowance of full credit.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as approval was taken from the wrong authority beyond three years. It ruled that such non-compliance with Section 151(ii) vitiates jurisdiction and renders the notice void.
