Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
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 : The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that merely declaring presumptive income under Section 44AD does not exempt taxpayers from explaining massive ba...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer made no addition after verifying disclosures, the grievance lacked merit. Groun...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years is valid for small additions. ITAT held that without meeting the ₹50 lakh ...
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.
ITAT held that though Section 151A was on statute, it required notification to take effect. As the order preceded notification, the assessment was quashed in entirety.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated by NFAC before Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 were without jurisdiction. Since Section 151A became effective only upon notification, the entire reassessment and related penalty were quashed.
The alleged unexplained investment was based only on third-party statements and seized digital data. In absence of receipts, confirmations, or admission by the assessee, the addition of ₹50 lakh was deleted.
