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 case examines whether a Section 148 notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid. Key takeaway: approval beyond three years required the higher authority under Section 151(ii), making the notice vulnerable.
The High Court set aside reassessment notices for not following mandatory faceless procedures introduced by recent Finance Act amendments. The ruling underscores that non-faceless issuance violates statutory requirements.
High Court ruled that a writ challenging an order under Section 148A(d) is maintainable even when statutory appeals are available, emphasizing jurisdictional and legal issues.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident investments sourced from foreign salary cannot be treated as unexplained income, deleting ₹2 crore addition under Section 69.
The Tribunal ruled that authorities erred by ignoring the sale deed, receipt, and bank statements solely due to a technical lapse in return filing. Since the documents clearly established the source of cash, the addition could not survive. The order directed deletion of the section 69A addition.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the six-year limitation under Section 149 is invalid. Key takeaway: Tax authorities must strictly comply with statutory time limits.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
Reassessment proceedings initiated without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General were invalid.
AO must apply their own mind to the contents of the DVO report and any other available material as relying solely on a DVO’s report without any independent inquiry or satisfaction was a fundamental jurisdictional flaw that invalidated the entire reassessment proceeding from the start.
