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...
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
ITAT Cuttack held that reassessment proceedings fail when no addition is made on the very reasons recorded for reopening. If the original ground disappears, the entire reassessment becomes invalid.
The ruling clarifies that CSR-related disallowance under Section 37(1) applies only from AY 2015-16 onwards. For earlier years, expenses with a business nexus remain deductible.
The Budget introduces extended timelines, updated-return flexibility, and fewer prosecutions. The key takeaway is a shift from punishment to voluntary compliance.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a survey statement, without corroborative evidence, are unsustainable. Development expenses were largely allowed, with only a reasonable estimated disallowance retained.
The case examined whether vague information justified reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal ruled that absence of concrete material and nexus to escapement makes reopening without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The issue was whether reassessment proceedings could continue when sanction was granted by an incorrect authority. The Court ruled that lack of approval from the designated authority vitiated the entire reassessment.
The ruling addressed conflicts between documentary proof of loans and third-party allegations of accommodation entries. The Tribunal held that unsupported allegations cannot override evidence establishing genuine loan transactions.
The ruling held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the permissible period were legally unsustainable. The decision reinforces strict adherence to limitation provisions.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued with approval of the Member of CBDT instead of Pr. CCIT is void and invalid. Accordingly, order passed under section 147 is without legal standing and hence quashed.
