Income Tax : Explore key court rulings on reassessment under Section 148 post-2021 amendments, covering procedural changes, taxpayer rights, an...
Income Tax : Written submission against wrong cash deposit notice under Section 148A(b), highlighting errors and lack of independent inquiry....
Income Tax : The Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal case clarified the validity of reassessment notices for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 and introduced t...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court's rulings clarify reassessment procedures under the Income Tax Act, addressing validity, TOLA implications, and ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court ruling in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal clarifies reassessment provisions post-April 2021 under Income Tax Act, extendin...
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 : ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment framed u/s. 148A(d) without application of mind and without controverting the expla...
Income Tax : Deloitte Haskins And Sells Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) The High Court recently adjudicated a case concerning a writ petition file...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court rejected Agarwal Polysacks' plea against IT reassessment under Section 147, holding the company accountable f...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that provision of section 292B doesn’t include passing of order u/s. 148 overlooking error apparent on the...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court rules that a jurisdictional assessing officer cannot override the faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A...
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...
Income Tax : Salient features of new Section 148 to 151A 'i.e. assessment/reassessment procedure of Income Escaping Assessment...
ITAT Mumbai held that the internal audit memo is outside the scope and ambit of the term “information” as provided in Explanation 1 to section 148 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2022. Accordingly, reopening of proceedings liable to be quashed.
Written submission against wrong cash deposit notice under Section 148A(b), highlighting errors and lack of independent inquiry.
It is submitted that the specific request of the petitioner for furnishing the entirety of the statements made as also the seized material, has not been accepted in its entirety and only the portions of statements were made available which has prejudiced the petitioner.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled on tax notices under Section 148, setting aside the jurisdictional proceedings in the case of Fastway Citizen Cable Network.
In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.
The petitioner – Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., has called in question the correctness of the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act.
Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms statutory provisions under Sections 148 and 144B prevail over administrative instructions in reassessment notice disputes.
The Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal case clarified the validity of reassessment notices for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 and introduced the “Surviving Period” concept.
Bombay High Court sets aside Section 148 notice in Anil Kumar Mehta vs ITO, citing procedural issues. Case remanded for fresh consideration by assessing officer.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment under Section 148 due to improper approval process, emphasizing the need for compliance with Section 151 requirements.
