Income Tax : The guide provides detailed rules for VDA transfers executed through exchanges, brokers, and payment gateways. It identifies who i...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment (AY 13-14, 14-15) as AO missed the Rajeev Bansal-mandated "surviving limitation." S. 149 prevails...
Income Tax : Analysis of the Rajeev Bansal Supreme Court ruling on reassessment approvals, clarifying complexities in Section 151 and its impac...
Income Tax : Explore key court rulings on reassessment under Section 148 post-2021 amendments, covering procedural changes, taxpayer rights, an...
Company Law : Overview of Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013: Board composition, women directors, resident and independent directors' roles,...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Pune ITAT quashed reassessment after finding changed grounds between sections 148A(b) and 148A(d) and holding the section 148 noti...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held the section 148 notice time-barred and upheld deletion of sections 69A and 69C additions due to lack of cogent evi...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Ahmedabad set aside the customs duty demand denying AIFTA benefits on imported alkalised cocoa powder, holding that the ext...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted Section 271(1)(c) penalty after holding that no incriminating material was found and the assessment accepted th...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after holding Section 148 notice and Section 148A(d) order were approved by an incompetent author...
Custom Duty : Learn how to file and process Bill of Entry amendments at Jawahar Lal Nehru Custom House. Get insights on self-approval and office...
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired limitation cannot be revived through later amendments, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether reassessment under Section 147 is valid after a search. The ITAT held it invalid, ruling that only Section 153A applies post-search, making the reassessment void.
With the reassessment proceedings held invalid, additions relating to property valuation and unexplained investment were not examined on merits. The appeal was allowed on legal grounds.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are revenue items, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The tribunal held reopening invalid where actual escaped income was below ₹50 lakh. It clarified that jurisdiction depends on real income, not transaction value.
ITAT remanded the matter where the assessee claimed PAN misuse leading to additions under Sections 68 and 69. It directed AO to verify the police report, holding that relief must be granted if misuse is substantiated.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated without approval from the correct authority under Section 151 is invalid. Since the reassessment itself was void, the revision order under Section 263 could not survive.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires sanction from higher authorities under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the PCIT, the reassessment notice was declared invalid.
