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 Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued...
Income Tax : The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessme...
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 : 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...
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Rs.7 lakh addition made to a non-resident Indian, ruling that his explanation for property investment was plausible, with funds sourced from NRE account withdrawals and jewelry sales.
Gujarat High Court held that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated to review the earlier stand adopted by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148A(d) on the same ground which is already considered by AO cannot be sustained.
Learn about the changes to income tax reopening proceedings under the Finance Act, 2021. This summary explains the new Section 148A and its relationship with Section 135A, highlighting key procedural points and common issues.
Gujarat HC set aside an income tax reassessment order after the AO failed to consider the taxpayer’s detailed reply, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
Ramachandra Reddy Vs DCIT: The Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional AOs, holding that after the March 29, 2022 notification, all such proceedings must be conducted via the mandatory faceless regime under Section 151A.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act without mandatory Document Identification Number [DIN] is invalid, non-est and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, assessment order thereon also collapses.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment notices issued in July 2022 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were barred by limitation, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Nilesh Shirish Mehta, setting aside a reassessment order for AY 2015-16. The tribunal found the Section 148 notice, issued after April 1, 2021, to be time-barred and invalid based on concessions made by the Department before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
The Delhi High Court set aside the entire reassessment process against Siam Stock Holdings Ltd. after finding that all official notices were sent to a former employee’s email address, violating principles of natural justice and rendering the proceedings invalid.
Karnataka High Court has ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, following a Supreme Court precedent.
