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 : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : The High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were time-barred after computing the surviving limitation as clar...
Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : The new reassessment framework mandates enquiry, hearing, and a reasoned order before reopening. Courts now test jurisdiction on p...
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 : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : The Court held that the petitioner had no connection with the entities or individuals from whose devices the disputed material was...
Income Tax : Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an ...
Income Tax : Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subse...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained on changing allegations introduced after issuance of n...
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 issue was whether the Assessing Officer could alter income despite a valid APA and modified return. The Court held that without an adverse TPO audit or APA cancellation, reassessment adjustments were without jurisdiction.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The court examined whether reassessment for one year could be based on information from another year. It held that absence of foundational facts for the relevant year invalidates the notice.
The Revenue argued for exclusion of the 148A show-cause period to justify approval. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the exclusion proviso applies only prospectively from Finance Act 2023.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice dispatched after the new law took effect must follow Section 148A, and failure to do so invalidates the entire proceedings.
The ITAT held that approval under section 151 by an incompetent authority invalidates reassessment. Sanction must strictly follow statutory hierarchy.
The Tribunal held that reassessment issued beyond three years requires approval from the PCCIT and not the PCIT. Since sanction was obtained from an incompetent authority, the entire reassessment was held void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The ITAT held that reassessment issued after three years is void if approval is taken from an incompetent authority. Wrong sanction under section 151 renders the entire reopening unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal ruled that a creditor’s write-off alone cannot trigger section 41(1) taxation. The assessee’s liability persisted in its books, and the ₹10.23 crore addition was deleted.
