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 : Explore the structure of income tax reassessment provisions, including Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, and 151, covering notice issu...
Income Tax : Explore the new reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2024, including updates to sections 148, 148A, 149, and 151, with s...
Income Tax : Discover the key amendments in the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024, affecting income tax reassessment procedures under the Income-tax Ac...
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 : Patna High Court held that notice must be supported by reasons. Accordingly, since notice issued under section 148 of the Income T...
Income Tax : Held that the AO seeks to disallow expenses on account of doubting the genuineness for the reason that the same were not incurred ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is...
Income Tax : Patna High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of incorrect information which was not supported by any...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court reviews Shell India’s challenge to the 2016-17 assessment order under Section 144C. Dispute involved Relaxatio...
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...
CESTAT Allahabad held that amendment of bill of entry under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for claiming benefit of duty exemption certificate received after clearance of goods allowed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond 3 years liable to be quashed as escaped income is less than INR 50,00,000. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 quashed.
The date on which AO passed the above order was 28.11.2019; therefore, re-opening of case for AY.2011-12 is time barred as per the clear provisions of section 150(2) of the Act. Hence, the direction of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no time limit has been prescribed under the statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act hence circular no. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 cannot prescribe particular time period which is not provide u/s. 149.
Assessee had not challenged the validity of reopening, though for the first time, assessee had challenged the action of AO by taking plea that AO should have assessed assessee under section 153C and not section 147/148.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
The present appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging quashing of the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. Revenue has mainly contested that CIT (A) has quashed the notices on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment order quashed since notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served after the date of limitation. Since issuance of notice is bad in law, consequent orders is liable to be quashed.
In these shipping bills, the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s Customs brokers inadvertently declared the Petitioner did not intend to claim the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (“MEIS”) benefit by indicating the letter “N” instead of “Y” in the relevant digital REWARD column.
