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 Tribunal observed that once the Revenue accepted sales arising from the same goods, it could not entirely disallow purchases as bogus. The decision emphasized the importance of stock records, invoices, and transport documents.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 after 31.03.2022 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149 and therefore invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were valid since the limitation period stood extended till 30 June 2021 under TOLA.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings initiated under an incorrect and obsolete PAN suffered from a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal ruled that failure to consider the assessee’s reply under Section 148A invalidated the reassessment proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 must comply with the amended limitation provisions under Section 149 effective from 01.09.2024. The Court quashed the notices as time-barred due to absence of material showing escaped income above Rs. 50 lakh.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of six years for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1). The Tribunal ruled that the amended ten-year reopening period could not revive time-barred cases.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already made additions on the exact issue for which reassessment was reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court followed the Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessment notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A. The petition was disposed of without quashing the proceedings.
