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...
Arulmigu Vettudaiyar Kaliamman Thirukovil Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Assessee challenged reassessment solely on the legal ground that notices u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 (AY 2015-16) & 29.03.2023 (AY 2016-17) were issued by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the Faceless Unit, contrary to Sec.151A & CBDT’s Faceless Reassessment Scheme notified on 29.03.2022, which mandates automated/faceless issuance […]
ITAT Chennai held that a notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 violates the mandatory faceless assessment scheme. Consequently, the reassessment and all subsequent actions, including penalty, were declared null and void.
The Court ruled that reassessment for a pre-CIRP period cannot continue when no claim was filed during CIRP and the approved resolution plan extinguished past dues. It held that post-approval tax demands are invalid.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
The Telangana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued for AY 2017-18 was invalid and barred by the six-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 149. Reopening assessments beyond the prescribed period is impermissible.
Calcutta High Court set aside an income tax assessment order initiated in the name of a deceased individual, highlighting that proceedings must be directed to legal heirs.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT. The ruling reiterates that the 2023 amendment to Section 151 cannot be applied retrospectively.
The Court ruled that Section 148 notices issued by the local Assessing Officer, following orders under Section 148A(d), are legally valid. It rejected arguments that such notices must be issued facelessly under the 2022 Scheme. This establishes that notice issuance and faceless assessment are distinct processes.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
Tribunal held that an unsigned 143(2) notice violates Section 282A(1), making reassessment void. Ruling confirms that signature is mandatory and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
