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 Guwahati held that additions could not be sustained where the transactions related to a separate partnership firm with a different PAN and different partners. The Tribunal deleted the additions due to lack of evidence linking those transactions to the assessee.
The ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on Investigation Wing information without independently analysing the material or establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s detailed replies. The Court held that non-consideration of the replies violated the statutory requirement under Section 148A.
The ITAT ruled that approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner is mandatory for reopening assessments beyond three years. Since approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, the reassessment was declared void and the addition was deleted.
The Mumbai ITAT held that ownership premises received under a redevelopment scheme are acquired in exchange for valuable tenancy rights and cannot be treated as having a nil cost. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value of the surrendered tenancy rights for recomputing capital gains.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. Having quashed the reassessment on jurisdictional grounds, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the Section 68 addition.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment initiated by an Assessing Officer without pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 is invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
The ITAT held that reassessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee’s objections through a separate speaking order before completing reassessment. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment following the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 cannot be based on third-party loose papers that fail to establish a live link with the assessee. The Court quashed the notice as the material was vague and unrelated to the petitioner’s transaction.
The Gujarat High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings after holding that they were founded on an undated and uninvestigated complaint without any direct link to the petitioner. The Court found the reopening to be based on conjectures and surmises.
