Subscribe to Newsletter

Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.

Total Site Visits
1,575,886
Growing community
Clear

Knowledge Portal

Click here to explore deep insights, FAQs, and comprehensive tax guides.

Explore Now

Ms. Raj Jain vs Income Tax Officer Ward 35(1), Delhi & Anr. – Reassessment Proceedings Set Aside Due to Misinformation under Sections 148 & 148A(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 300
Read More »
Facts of the CaseThe present writ petition pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2016–17. The petitioner challenged reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department on the ground that they were based on inc...

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs VALLEY IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. | Delhi High Court | Section 271(1)(c) r/w Section 43B Income Tax Act | Voluntary Disallowance & Penalty Deletion

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 334
Read More »
Facts of the CaseThe present appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2014–15, wherein the Revenue challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the In...

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. | Section 153C | No Addition Without Incriminating Material | Delhi High Court

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 308
Read More »
Facts of the CaseThe present appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), arising from proceedings relating to Assessment Year (AY) 2008–0...

Dauphin Travel Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Delhi & Ors. | Delhi High Court | Section 142(1) Income Tax Act | Violation of Natural Justice due to Improper Notice & Insufficient Response Time

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 307
Read More »
FACTS OF THE CASEThe present writ petition pertains to Assessment Year 2013–14 wherein the petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 25.05.2023. The grievance raised was that statutory notices issued under Sec...

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr. – Jurisdiction Conflict Between Income Tax Act & MSMED Act on Special Audit Fees (Delhi High Court, 2023)

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 304
Read More »
Facts of the CaseThe Income Tax Department appointed a Chartered Accountant firm (registered as a Micro Enterprise) as a Special Auditor under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act for conducting audits of multiple en...

Manujendra Shah vs Commissioner of Income Tax-8 & Anr. – Reassessment Quashed Due to Non-Application of Mind under Sections 147/148 of Income Tax Act

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 278
Read More »
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner filed his return for AY 2011–12, which was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 alleging that i...

Manujendra Shah vs Commissioner of Income Tax-8 & Anr. – Reassessment Quashed Due to Non-Application of Mind under Sections 147/148 of Income Tax Act

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 332
Read More »
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner filed his return for AY 2011–12, which was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 alleging that i...

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Micro & Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & Anr. – Delhi High Court on MSMED Act vs Income Tax Act (Section 142(2A) Special Audit Fee Dispute)

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 311
Read More »
Facts of the Case The Income Tax Department appointed a CA Firm (M/s SBG & Co.) as Special Auditor under Section 142(2A). After completion of audits, the CA Firm raised invoices claiming subst...

CCTEB India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-17) & Anr. – Delhi High Court | Stay on Tax Demand | Section 281B Income Tax Act | 20% Deposit Rule Clarified

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 282
Read More »
Facts of the Case The petitioner faced a total tax demand of ₹56.48 crore across three assessment years. The department directed payment of ₹35.42 crore pending appeal before CIT(A). B...

CCTEB India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17 & Anr. – Delhi High Court (AY 2019-20 to 2021-22 | Section 281B | Stay of Demand | 20% Deposit Rule)

Author
My Tax Expert
09/04/2026  |  0 COMMENTS  |  VISITOR'S COUNT: 281
Read More »
Facts of the Case The petitioner, CCTEB India Private Limited, faced tax demands for AYs 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, aggregating to approximately ₹56.48 crores. The Principal Commissione...