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...
The reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid where the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. A notice issued for a ₹5 lakh donation was declared void ab initio.
The tribunal held that reassessment initiated through a jurisdictional officer instead of the mandatory faceless mechanism was invalid. Notices under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 must follow the faceless scheme, failing which the entire assessment collapses.
Although the Revenue followed the new reassessment procedure, the notice was issued beyond the allowable time. The Tribunal set aside the reassessment as void ab initio.
Sanjay Champalal Jaiswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Reopening Beyond Three Years Invalid Where Escapement Is Below ₹50 Lakh — ITAT Pune Quashes Reassessment The Pune SMC Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment for AY 2016-17, holding that the notice under section 148 dated 27-07-2022 was without jurisdiction, as the alleged income escaping assessment was […]
The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal clarified that expenditure disallowances do not qualify as assets under section 149(1). Without asset-based escaped income, reopening beyond three years is barred. This offers strong protection against belated reassessments.
ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment issued beyond three years where alleged escapement was only ₹35 lakh. Section 149 bars reopening unless the ₹50-lakh threshold is satisfied.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer could issue a reassessment notice only within the balance days available after excluding the stayed period. Issuance beyond that surviving window renders the notice time-barred.
The assessment based on a second notice issued in July 2022 was quashed as time-barred. Once limitation had expired, subsequent notices could not revive reassessment jurisdiction.
