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...
Tribunal ruled that the Section 148 notice issued on 29.07.2022 was beyond the limitation period under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal (2024) decision. Reassessment proceedings were declared void, and the assessee’s appeal was fully allowed.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
The ITAT Agra set aside the NFAC’s order confirming a Rs. 22,01,000/− cash deposit addition, citing the NFAC’s failure to follow earlier verification directions and admitting new legal grounds under the NTPC principle.
ITAT Kolkata rules that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material, citing the Supreme Court’s Abhisar Buildwell judgment.
Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving limitation period and without sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner was invalid, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal.
CESTAT Delhi held that proceedings to recover the drawback under Rules 16/16A of the Drawback Rules are in the nature of execution proceedings hence they cannot be used to modify the value in the Shipping Bills.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act expiry of specified period of limitation is time barred and hence invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed and notice is quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that since amendment u/s. 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not come into force, the present anti-dumping appeal would be maintainable before the Tribunal u/s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment (AY 13-14, 14-15) as AO missed the Rajeev Bansal-mandated “surviving limitation.” S. 149 prevails over S. 148A procedural timelines.
Relying on the jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal quashed the entire crore addition, holding that service of the notice beyond the statutory limitation date is a fatal flaw. The decision emphasizes that procedural compliance with the time limit is mandatory and cannot be waived.
