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 held that Schedule-I of ITR-7 applies only to amounts accumulated under Section 11(2) and not to deemed application under Explanation (1) to Section 11(1). It deleted the addition after finding that the lower authorities had incorrectly interpreted the ITR instructions.
The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period was without jurisdiction. It quashed both the Section 148 notice and the consequential assessment order.
The ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be sustained where the show cause notice and assessment order fail to specify whether the allegation is under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the penalty after finding the notice lacked a definite charge.
The ITAT Lucknow upheld deletion of the addition after finding that the cash deposits represented business receipts arising from disclosed sales and were duly recorded in the books of account. It held that section 69A could not be invoked on the facts of the case.
The ITAT Raipur upheld the disallowance of 12.5% of disputed purchases after finding that the assessee failed to establish the actual physical movement and consumption of the goods. The Tribunal held that invoices, banking records and GST documents alone were insufficient in the absence of supporting transport and production evidence.
The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlights the extended filing timeline and the revised rules governing reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings after holding that approval was granted by the PCIT instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii). The Court applied its earlier ruling and set aside the order and notice.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were invalid because the sanction was granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as required under Section 151(ii). The Court quashed both the Section 148A(d) order and the Section 148 notice.
