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 Delhi High Court set aside reassessment notice and order against Sarthak Gupta for AY 2014–15, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of statutory period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that a reassessment notice issued on 7 May 2024 for AY 2017–18 was beyond six-year limitation period under Section 149 of Income Tax Act and therefore invalid.
CESTAT Delhi held that refund claim of excess CVD paid after completion of one year from date of payment of duty as well as the date of relevant judgement is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment is invalid in as much as the approval/ sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner. Further, reasons for reopening are based on on-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal allowed.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Sunita Salhotra, quashing the Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 as barred by the statutory limitation period that expired on March 31, 2022. The Tribunal relied on the Revenue’s concession in the Supreme Court’s Rajiv Bansal case regarding notices issued for this AY on or after April 1, 2021.
ITAT Pune annulled reassessment proceedings, holding that approval by PCIT instead of PCCIT for notices issued after three years was contrary to Section 151.
ITAT Delhi ruled that WhatsApp chats recovered during a search, if corroborated by context and left unrebutted by the assessee, create a statutory presumption of correctness under Section 292C, leading to a sustained addition of ₹9 lakh as unexplained money. The Tribunal also directed the allowance of an 80TTA deduction claim for the abated assessment year (AY 2018-19).
The ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment orders for three assessment years (AY 2011-12, 2015-16, 2016-17) based on fundamental legal flaws. The ruling confirms that reassessments are invalid if initiated on wrong or substituted reasons, if they are time-barred (following the Supreme Court’s concession in the Rajeev Bansal case), or if they proceed without valid statutory sanction from the competent authority.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, ruling the Section 148 notice issued on 31.07.2022 was time-barred. This decision strictly follows the Rajeev Bansal (SC) judgment, which held that the TOLA extension for reopening notices did not apply to AY 2015-16 beyond 31.03.2021.
