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 deleted ₹14.74 lakh addition as identical source was accepted in spouse’s case. Alleged on-money payment lacked corroborative evidence.
Tribunal ruled that once consideration was received and possession handed over in an earlier year, subsequent registration cannot shift taxability. Revenue’s reliance on Insight Portal data was rejected.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid as approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment beyond 3 years as approval under Sec 151(ii) was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT, rendering notice u/s 148 and entire proceedings invalid.
ITAT held that though Section 151A was on statute, it required notification to take effect. As the order preceded notification, the assessment was quashed in entirety.
The Tribunal found repeated factual errors in recorded reasons and notices. As the reopening lacked live nexus with escapement of income, it was struck down as a nullity.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash introduced by partners as capital contribution in an LLP does not attract Section 269SS and therefore penalty under Section 271D was invalid.
ITAT ruled that mere reference to high-value transactions cannot justify reopening beyond three years. Absence of statutory conditions under Section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment void.
ITAT held that for reassessment beyond three years, approval must be obtained from the PCCIT under Section 151. Sanction from PCIT was held invalid, rendering the notice and assessment void.
