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...
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that the Assessing Officer already possessed complete information before issuing notice under section 148.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated with approval from an incorrect authority violates section 151. Such jurisdictional defect renders the section 148 notice void.
The Tribunal held that cash routed through a bank account for money transfer activity cannot be taxed in full when only commission is earned. Once commission income is offered to tax, no further addition is justified.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed and only the embedded profit can be taxed, upholding a 20% addition.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after the faceless regime came into force are invalid. The key takeaway is that only faceless authorities can initiate reassessment post-29 March 2022.
Validity of reopening and quantum of addition for alleged bogus purchases. Reopening upheld; addition restricted to 5% profit element. Key takeaway: Where sales and quantities are accepted, only embedded profits can be added.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where notices are issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO. Non-compliance with the faceless scheme renders the entire process void.
The Tribunal held that additions in a search assessment cannot survive without incriminating material. Mere repetition of an annulled earlier assessment was found legally unsustainable.
The ruling clarifies that mere reproduction of third-party information alleging disproportionate assets is insufficient. The Assessing Officer must clearly identify escaped income and apply independent reasoning.
The Tribunal noted that no construction investment occurred during the year under appeal. Accordingly, no addition for unexplained investment could be sustained in that assessment year.
