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 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.
