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...
ITAT held that section 249(4) cannot be invoked where no taxable income arises in India. Appeals must be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds.
The court held reassessment invalid where proceedings were based solely on unverified digital material from unrelated parties. It ruled that absence of a live nexus with income escapement makes reopening unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be reopened on issues already examined earlier. It held that absence of fresh material and mere change of opinion renders reopening invalid.
ITAT Mumbai holds reassessment invalid where approval under Section 151 was obtained from incorrect authority, ruling defect as jurisdictional and quashing notice under Section 148 and consequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reopening beyond 3 years where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, holding notice under Section 148 time-barred and invalid, thereby deleting consequential addition.
ITAT Mumbai rules redevelopment hardship compensation as capital receipt and deletes addition due to double taxation, granting relief where income was already taxed proportionately in later years.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
