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...
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since income earned in NRE Account is exempt under section 10(4)(ii) of the Act and hence there is no question of escapement of income.
The ITAT Chennai upheld the quashing of a reassessment for AY 2017-18, ruling the u/s 148 notice invalid. As more than three years had elapsed, u/s 151(ii) required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT), confirming the jurisdictional defect.
The ITAT Ahmedabad, applying the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling and Gujarat High Court’s precedent, invalidated a reassessment for AY 2017-18. The order u/s 148A(d) and fresh u/s 148 notice, stemming from a deemed notice issued on 30.06.2021, were held time-barred as they were issued 20 days beyond the maximum seven-day ‘surviving time’ limit.
ITAT Hyderabad in Pitti Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT quashes a reassessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The order holds that notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the Faceless AO (FAO) after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme 2022 are void ab initio.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that reassessment notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after April 1, 2022, are invalid and void ab initio. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, quashing the entire reassessment for lack of proper authority.
This decision strengthens the protection against time-barred reassessment, emphasizing that the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) applies only if the escaped income is factually above ₹50 lakh. The ITAT confirmed the reassessment was invalid as the AO’s final order confirmed the escaped income was much lower than the extended limit required for reopening
The ITAT Delhi invalidated the reassessment proceedings against Huawei International, a Singapore resident, for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s attempt to investigate offshore software receipts, based merely.
Delhi High Court held that under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and Faceless Assessing Officer possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices, reaffirming its earlier ruling in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Reiterating its view from K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi HC held that both Jurisdictional and Faceless Assessing Officers have concurrent powers to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Neena Wadhwa v. PCIT upholds the concurrent power of both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to issue reassessment notices under Section 148, citing the binding precedent of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd..
