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...
ITAT held that post-29.03.2022, notices must be issued faceless; issuance by JAO violated law, invalidating the reopening and assessment.
Karnataka High Court quashed several notices, assessment orders, and bank garnishments issued under sections 148A, 147, 156, and 226(3), allowing the cooperative federation’s petition.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69A/69B relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
The High Court set aside reassessment notices for not following mandatory faceless procedures introduced by recent Finance Act amendments. The ruling underscores that non-faceless issuance violates statutory requirements.
The ITAT determined that the tax department failed to adhere to the statutory deadline for issuing a Section 148 notice, making the reassessment jurisdiction invalid from the start. The ruling confirms that strict adherence to the extended limitation period is mandatory, and failure to comply results in the entire reassessment being quashed.
Assessing the full cash component of a property sale in the hands of one legal heir was found to be factually incorrect, leading the Tribunal to delete the addition. The appellate authority confirmed that the proceeds were jointly receivable by all co-owners and could not be attributed to the Assessee exclusively as unexplained credit.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2016-17.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2018-19.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by annulling assessment without addressing issue of alleged bogus purchases and directed a denovo adjudication on merits in compliance with Section 250(4) and (6).
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
