Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a return filed under section 148 remains valid even if delayed. Failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an Updated Return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Secti...
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 : ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessme...
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 issue was whether bogus purchases disallowed under section 37(1) must be reclassified as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. ITAT held that where the source of expenditure is known, section 69C cannot be mechanically invoked.
The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a shell concern with no real services is taxable as unexplained credit. Claims that expenditure related to an earlier year were rejected.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
The Tribunal ruled that once the original notice itself is jurisdictionally invalid, later compliance with section 148A is irrelevant. Foundational defects cannot be remedied procedurally.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not disputed, the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be added under section 69C. Only the embedded profit element is taxable.
The Tribunal ruled that AMP expenses incurred by a brand-owning trader cannot be allocated to contract manufacturers without proof of obligation or agreement. Tax incentives enjoyed by related entities alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
ITAT held that dismissing a ground without reasons violates appellate duty. The 43B disallowance was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication.
The judgment reiterates that reassessment cannot be initiated merely because the AO takes a different view later. Jurisdictional limits under tax law were strictly enforced.
