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 Ahmedabad held that property payments were properly explained with bank records and affidavits. Additions under Section 69 for cash deposit and stamp duty were deleted.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
ITAT Lucknow held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked without specifying what enquiries the AO failed to conduct. As the PCIT did not spell out such deficiencies, the revision order was quashed.
ITAT Indore held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment proceedings where no advance tax obligation arises. The dismissal of appeal without examining merits was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that transfer took place in 2000 upon execution of a registered development agreement and receipt of full consideration, not in 2008 when the sale deed was executed.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 143(2) issued by an ITO without jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 was invalid. The assessment was declared void ab initio, making the Revenue’s appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling on surviving period. Notices issued beyond the permissible limit were declared invalid.
Gujarat High Court held that the respondent officer could not have assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment since there was nothing which indicate that petitioner has participated knowingly in the sham transaction. Accordingly, order is quashed and set aside.
The High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
