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 held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions as the AO failed to provide evidence or conduct independent verification. The ruling highlights the need for substantiated findings in reassessment cases.
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.
