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 ...
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party GST information and suspicion cannot be sustained without independent investigation, restricting estimation to 1% of sales.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after the faceless regime came into force are invalid. The key takeaway is that only faceless authorities can initiate reassessment post-29 March 2022.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal held that NFAC had no authority to pass reassessment orders before the faceless reassessment notification became operative. As a result, the entire assessment was quashed. The ruling highlights that participation by the assessee cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
The Tribunal held that a general survey admission by the seller cannot justify additions in every buyers case. Documentary proof of purchases and sales outweighed unsupported allegations.
The tribunal held that reassessment initiated through a jurisdictional officer instead of the mandatory faceless mechanism was invalid. Notices under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 must follow the faceless scheme, failing which the entire assessment collapses.
Purchase Date Doubts Not Enough to Deny LTCG Exemption: ITAT Mumbai held that transfer dates shown in share certificates satisfied the statutory holding requirement.
Finding that the Assessing Officer acted beyond section 151A, the Court quashed the reopening notices. The ruling highlights that reassessment cannot proceed without valid jurisdictional foundation.
Reassessment actions were quashed where sanctions were not lawfully granted under section 151A. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory approval requirements.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the mandatory faceless regime under Sections 144B and 151A. Non-compliance with the prescribed faceless procedure renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
