Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incr...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are rev...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the assessee prov...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statut...
The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incriminating evidence, such addition is unsustainable, emphasizing the need for nexus.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires escaped income in the form of an asset. Since bogus purchases are revenue items, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that dividend received from identifiable mutual funds through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained income. It ruled that proper documentation and traceability negate applicability of Section 68.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the assessee provides contract notes, demat records, and bank statements proving the transactions.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO timelines. The changes directly impact ongoing appeals, rectification, revision, and reassessment proceedings, altering litigation strategy for taxpayers and authorities alike.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond three years requires approval from higher specified authorities under Section 151. Since approval was taken from an incorrect authority, the reassessment was declared void.
The Tribunal held that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition differs from the reasons recorded. Treating dividend as unexplained cash credit was beyond the scope of reopening.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal, ITAT ruled that proper sanction is mandatory under the new reassessment regime. Non-compliance with Section 151 rendered the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
