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 ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. It ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Gujarat High Court held that once the Resolution Plan was approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all tax liabilities not forming part of the plan stood extinguished. It therefore quashed the reassessment notice and the order under Section 148A(d).
The Gujarat High Court set aside the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific reasons for treating bank credits as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during complete scrutiny and adopted a permissible view. Since the twin conditions under Section 263 were not satisfied, the revision order was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reassessment notice after finding that the seized inquiry register did not establish any direct or indirect connection with the taxpayer. It held that reopening based on vague material and presumptions was unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer after noting that the related quantum appeal had already been remanded for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the penalty should also be reconsidered in accordance with law.
The Gujarat High Court held that after considering the ledger entries correctly, the alleged escaped income was only ₹45 lakh, below the threshold under Section 149(1)(b). As the reopening was beyond the prescribed limitation, the order under Section 148A(d) was quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey proceedings under Section 133A, not a search under Section 132. Court ruled that Section 96(a)(i) cannot be applied beyond its express wording.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish between under-reporting and misreporting of income. The penalty was deleted for lack of a specific finding.
The High Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and bank attachment after finding that the proceedings were completed without the petitioner’s participation. The matter was restored to the stage of the Section 148A(b) notice for a fresh response.
