Reassessment Summary – A.Y. 2017-18 Original Notice u/s 148The first notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai on 27.04.2021, i.e., during the transition period between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021. Subsequent Proceedings post-Ashish Agarwal JudgmentAfter the Ashish Agarwal decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 26.05.2022 by ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Mumbai (a different officer).Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) and fresh notice u/s 148 were issued on 30.07.2022, after obtaining approval from the PCIT. Issues for Consideration Jurisdictional Validity of NoticeThe reassessment notice u/s 148 can be issued only by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. If the subsequent notice (by Ward 2(2)(3)) was issued by an officer other than the JAO, such notice is without jurisdiction and therefore invalid in law. Escapement Below ₹50 LakhsAs the alleged escapement of income is less than ₹50 lakhs, the reassessment itself is barred by limitation and invalid, as held by the Mumbai ITAT in: Amina Aslam Qureshi v. ITO – (ITA No. 769/Mum/2025) Mrs. Nayna Ashok Shah v. ITO – ITA No. 6247/Mum/2024 Pankaj Chandrakant Pimple v. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 169 (Mum-Trib.) Invalid Approval by PCIT as approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General is required.

read more

Landowner in JDA getting one flat in kind and balance area to be sold under revenue sharing 60:40. Promoter selling under construction flats with agreement to sell prior to completion certificate. Does it amount to creating third party rights before cc , liable to violations of provision of 45(5A). Plz Guide  

read more

During the F.Y 2024-25 the assessee sold the coal and on that TCS liability arises u/s 206C(1)(vii), which reads as under:- “(vii) Minerals, being coal or lignite or iron ore –  One per cent:”   TDS u/s 194Q was done by purchaser Query : Whether in view of the fact that purchaser has made TDS u/s 194Q than the seller is not liable for TCS u/s 206C(1)(vii) ?

read more

A company has transferred certain employees to another group entity along with the related Gratuity and Leave Encashment provisions. The receiving company has increased its provision by debiting the transferring company, and the transferring company has reduced its provision by crediting the receiving company. No actual payment has been made to the employees so far. As per my understanding, the amount transferred should be allowed to the transferring company by treating it as a paid amount, and disallowed for the receiving company as an expense not actually paid under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Kindly clarify whether this interpretation is correct and how the transaction should be treated for tax purposes under Section 43B in such inter-company employee provision transfers.

read more

is it covered u/s 45[4]/9B if 1] donee is a pvt trust for relative 2] donee is a pvt trust for non relative

read more

When these sections i.e. 194 JA and 194 JB were introduced in the Income Tax Act 1961?

read more

Assessee took fraudulent cenvat credit by fake invoices. Admitted the same during search. Upon order of DCGST paid the entire principal amount of duty . Can it ( not interest & penalty) be claimed u/s 43B or will it be hit by Explanation to section 37 ?

read more

During the F.Y 2024-25 the assessee sold the coal and on that 206-CJ i.e.. TCS liability arises TDS u/s 194Q was done by purchaser Query : Whether in view of the fact that purchaser has made TDS u/s 194Q than the seller is not liable for TCS u/s 206-CJ ?

read more

when a new shop is allotted after redevelopment, is it taxable ? any case law ? does it make if it was depreciable ?

read more

Can AO add share premium u/s 68 when share capital for the same is not added ? any case law ? 56[2]viib was non existent in earlier years !

read more