Income Tax : Understand Section 194S of the Income Tax Act on 1% TDS for Virtual Digital Asset transfers, including deductor rules, compliance,...
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 : The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limita...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation under Sec...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that appellate powers under Section 251 are confined to assessment year under appeal. Directions to reopen completed as...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income...
Income Tax : Hyderabad ITAT held that a notice issued under Section 148 after six years from the end of AY 2015-16 was invalid. The Tribunal ru...
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 Rajasthan High Court ruled that a Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 was valid as it fell within the ten-year limit for escaped income in search cases exceeding Rs.50 lakh.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment notices must be individually evaluated for surviving limitation. AO directed to re-compute limitation under Rajeev Bansal framework before deciding validity.
Madras High Court held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act against the deceased assessee sustained since income tax department not informed about the death of the deceased assessee.
ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving period, as clarified by Rajeev Bansal, are time-barred for AY 2015-16. The ruling emphasizes that procedural compliance with limitation periods is mandatory, even if notices are issued under unamended law.
The Tribunal found that a fixed-deposit mismatch caused an unjustified ₹5.33-crore addition. Delay was condoned and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment with proper verification.
The Telangana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued for AY 2017-18 was invalid and barred by the six-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 149. Reopening assessments beyond the prescribed period is impermissible.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a notice under section 148 issued beyond the statutory period is invalid, quashing a ₹115 crore reassessment of a share-trading company. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to “surviving time” limits, making the reassessment void.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued manually by the JAO violates the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that any Section 148 or 148A notice must originate only from the faceless system, making the JAO-issued notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was issued 45 days beyond the maximum permissible period under Rajeev Bansal (SC), making the 148 notice invalid. Applying the deemed-notice framework of Ashish Agarwal, it ruled that the AO had “zero surviving days” to act. The reassessment was quashed for being issued after the statutory outer limit.
