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 reopening beyond three years requires sanction from higher authorities under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the PCIT, the reassessment notice was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid when the assessee has fully disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny. The reassessment was quashed for lack of new material evidence.
The tribunal noted discrepancies in the dispatch register used to prove issuance of the notice. Because the records did not inspire confidence, the tribunal held the reassessment notice to be time-barred.
ITAT Chennai rules 60% tax under Section 115BBE not applicable to AY 2017-18 transactions before 01-04-2017; directs tax on ₹30.43 lakh addition at 30%.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 148 issued beyond three years requires sanction from PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from PCIT was held insufficient, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that entire bank deposits cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Instead, where deposits relate to commission-based transactions, only a reasonable profit percentage (2% of deposits) should be taxed.
The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A. The matter was sent back to the AO for reconsideration after examining the evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court quashed the reassessment for being based on a change of opinion, the additions made in those proceedings could not survive.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
