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...
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer rather than through the mandatory faceless system. The assessment order was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after expiry of the surviving period were declared time-barred.
The Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice within limitation is sufficient, and an inadvertent attachment of another assessee’s document is a curable defect, not a jurisdictional flaw.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment as the notice issued beyond three years failed to satisfy mandatory conditions under Section 149(1)(b). It held that absence of proper jurisdictional facts and compliance rendered the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as approval was taken from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT under Section 151(ii). Jurisdictional non-compliance rendered the notice void.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling on surviving period. Notices issued beyond the permissible limit were declared invalid.
ITAT ruled that mere reference to high-value transactions cannot justify reopening beyond three years. Absence of statutory conditions under Section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid under Section 149. As a result, the entire reassessment based on alleged accommodation entries was quashed as void ab initio.
