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 : Gujarat HC quashed Section 148 reassessment as it was issued beyond Section 149 limitation, holding Section 152(3) applies to sear...
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 : Receipts earned by a German resident individual from rendering managerial, consultancy and business development services outside I...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that delayed transfer of seized documents under Section 132(9A) did not invalidate notices issued under...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verific...
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...
Kerala High Court held that importer mis-declared semi-dried dates imported by them as fresh dates hence IGST exemption wrongly claimed. Further, importer approached to amend bill of entry only after initiation of proceedings under section 28, accordingly, amendment is not permissible.
The decision clarifies that the monetary threshold under Section 149 applies to actual taxable income, not purchase turnover. As the addition fell below ₹50 lakh, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the fresh notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the surviving limitation period available after applying TOLA and Supreme Court directions. As a result, the reassessment proceedings were declared void ab initio.
ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
ITAT held that under the amended law, reopening after three years is barred where alleged escaped income is under ₹50 lakh. The notice issued under Section 148 was declared invalid and reassessment proceedings were quashed.
Where more than three years had elapsed, approval from the higher specified authority was compulsory before issuing notice. Failure to obtain such approval vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The Tribunal held that reassessment for AY 2015–16 was barred by limitation as the Section 148 notice was issued beyond the permissible period. It ruled that TOLA did not extend the time limit and the proceedings were void ab initio.
ITAT Delhi held that satisfaction note recorded before initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act is not a valid satisfaction. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act is quashed since based on invalid satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that reopening AY 2012–13 after a post-2021 search was barred by limitation. Applying Supreme Court guidance, it ruled that older limitation periods protect concluded assessments from retrospective reopening.
