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 : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : This article explains why reassessment proceedings may be invalid if the Assessing Officer merely relies on Investigation Wing rep...
Income Tax : A detailed overview of limitation periods prescribed under the Income-tax Act reveals how missing statutory deadlines can lead to ...
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...
Corporate Law : Non- extension of the Time Barring Date for assessment of reopened cases and issuance of the notices for reopening – difficu...
Income Tax : Madras HC held that merely issuing a corrigendum acknowledging the return did not rectify the defective assessment process and ord...
Income Tax : ITAT held reassessment under Sections 147/148 invalid because it was based on a pre-1 April 2021 third-party search, requiring pro...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed a Section 148 notice issued after the limitation under the first proviso to Section 149, holding the reassessm...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed the reassessment proceedings after holding that ignoring the assessee's adjournment request violated natural ju...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that extensive documentary evidence, audited books, supplier confirmations and banking records established the g...
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 : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
Corporate Law : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association (W.B.) Unit Date: 02.02.2023. To The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, W...
Income Tax : CBDT directed that cases reopened u/s 147/148A in consonance with Judgement of SC in case of UoI vs. Ashish Agarwal & CBDT instruc...
Income Tax : Consequent to order passed by Allahabad High Court passing severe strictures and proposing to levy exemplary cost of Rs 50 lakhs i...
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are revenue items, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The department has identified high-risk cases through its Insight Portal for AYs 2022-25. It directs officers to initiate reassessment proceedings based on risk analysis, emphasizing data-driven scrutiny.
The tribunal held reopening invalid where actual escaped income was below ₹50 lakh. It clarified that jurisdiction depends on real income, not transaction value.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as no proper sanction under Section 151 was produced. The notice under Section 148 was quashed, making all additions unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
The Tribunal upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry into excess diesel shortage claimed by the assessee. It held that incomplete enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated without approval from the correct authority under Section 151 is invalid. Since the reassessment itself was void, the revision order under Section 263 could not survive.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 148 issued beyond three years requires sanction from PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from PCIT was held insufficient, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
