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 ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on Investigation Wing information without independently analysing the material or establishing a nexus with the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessments initiated under Section 153C were time-barred under every possible computation of limitation. The assessment orders were declared void ab initio and quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reassessment proceedings after finding that seized diaries recorded unaccounted cash transactions exceeding prescribed limits. The Tribunal held that statutory conditions for reopening were satisfied.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C requires the AO of the other person to independently assess whether seized documents have a bearing on that person’s income. A mechanical satisfaction note based solely on another officer’s communication was held invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that third-party WhatsApp messages and decoded chat entries lacked evidentiary value against the assessee without corroborative material. The Revenue failed to prove that any cash was actually paid over and above the registered sale consideration.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were invalid where the case was based on search material requiring action under Section 153C. The ruling reinforces that search-related assessments for third parties must follow the special procedure under Section 153C, not regular reassessment provisions.
The Delhi ITAT held that notifications issued under TOLA extending limitation periods applied only to specified statutes and not to Black Money Act assessments. As a result, the assessment order passed beyond the statutory deadline was quashed.
The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid where the satisfaction note for the non-searched person was recorded after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C(3) barred such proceedings, rendering the assessments void.
The Delhi High Court held that the period consumed in granting time to the assessee under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while computing limitation. As reassessment proceedings were initiated within time, the Section 148 notice was held valid.
