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...
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue notice under Section 143(2). The decision confirms that compliance with this statutory requirement is indispensable in reassessment proceedings.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued physically by jurisdictional officers instead of faceless authorities violate Section 151A. The ruling sets aside non-compliant notices while tying the final outcome to pending Supreme Court decisions.
The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation of the faceless scheme were without jurisdiction. The Court quashed the notices while preserving the Revenue’s rights subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.
ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limitation principle and therefore lacked legal validity.
The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme were without jurisdiction. It quashed notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 along with consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that merely declaring presumptive income under Section 44AD does not exempt taxpayers from explaining massive bank credits. In absence of purchase records, bills, or confirmations, Section 69A addition was sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer made no addition after verifying disclosures, the grievance lacked merit. Grounds were rightly treated as infructuous due to absence of tax impact.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years is valid for small additions. ITAT held that without meeting the ₹50 lakh threshold under Section 149, the notice is void.
