Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata quashed NFAC reassessment and consequential penalty, holding faceless reassessment lacked jurisdiction before Section...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi deleted bogus purchase additions, holding that genuine purchases and sales were supported by documentary evidence and t...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment for approval under Section 151(ii) by the wrong authority and deleted penalties under Sections 27...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years is void when sanctioned by the PCIT instead of the authority p...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals fr...
ITAT Kolkata quashed NFAC reassessment and consequential penalty, holding faceless reassessment lacked jurisdiction before Section 151A was notified.
ITAT Delhi deleted bogus purchase additions, holding that genuine purchases and sales were supported by documentary evidence and the Revenue failed to disprove them.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment for approval under Section 151(ii) by the wrong authority and deleted penalties under Sections 270A and 271AAC.
ITAT Delhi held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years is void when sanctioned by the PCIT instead of the authority prescribed under Section 151.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. It ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the reassessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition, leaving all issues open for future adjudication.
ITAT Guwahati held that additions could not be sustained where the transactions related to a separate partnership firm with a different PAN and different partners. The Tribunal deleted the additions due to lack of evidence linking those transactions to the assessee.
The ITAT ruled that approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner is mandatory for reopening assessments beyond three years. Since approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, the reassessment was declared void and the addition was deleted.
The Bombay High Court directed revival of the assessee’s appeal after the Supreme Court remanded Section 151A reassessment matters for fresh consideration. The Court allowed the assessee to raise all legal and factual grounds, including limitation, before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Tribunal condoned the delayed appeal filing after finding sufficient cause and allowed the matter to proceed. It also clarified that reassessment jurisdiction remains valid despite arguments regarding faceless assessment provisions.
