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...
The High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after holding that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer violate the faceless assessment mandate under Section 151A.
Holding the issue covered by binding precedent, the Court ruled that reassessment proceedings not conducted in a faceless manner are unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT held that jewellery tag prices in internal software cannot be equated with realised sales, deleting GP additions made without evidence of suppression.
The Telangana High Court held that proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 initiated post-Faceless Scheme are procedurally invalid. All consequential orders were quashed, while the revenue retains rights under Supreme Court directions.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was invalid, resulting in the reassessment order being set aside.
Tribunal held that a notice issued by JAO under Section 148 is invalid, emphasizing that only FAO-issued notices comply with faceless reassessment rules. Revenue may seek revival if Supreme Court changes legal position.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
The ITAT held that issuance of Section 148 notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer violates Section 151A, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
