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 Delhi held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction since revisionary proceedings under section 263 on the same issue was already dropped.
A detailed look at how the Finance Act, 2021 reshaped Sections 147–151, introduced Section 148A, and reduced limitation periods while strengthening natural justice safeguards.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the PCIT granted only a signature without recording satisfaction, violating the statutory requirement of prior approval.
The Calcutta High Court set aside a reassessment order under Sections 148A(3) and 148, holding that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to respond, even though notice was served at the consultant’s email address.
The Tribunal remanded the reassessment after the assessee sought another opportunity to explain the source of investment. The addition was set aside subject to payment of costs and fresh adjudication on merits.
The High Court quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the surviving limitation period, holding it time-barred under Supreme Court rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice within limitation is sufficient, and an inadvertent attachment of another assessee’s document is a curable defect, not a jurisdictional flaw.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years was invalid since the alleged escaped income, after considering bank loan evidence, was below ₹50 lakh. The notice under section 148 and final assessment were quashed as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, and absence of proof of Form 68 filing disentitles relief.
