Income Tax : Explore the proposed scheme for resolving unresolved tax demands, easing taxpayer burdens, and improving compliance through fair, ...
Income Tax : Faceless assessments in FY 23-24 raised Rs 43 trillion in tax arrears, sparking concern over the impact on India's tax ecosystem a...
Income Tax : Summary: Income additions by tax authorities due to discrepancies between a taxpayer’s declared income and the details in Fo...
Income Tax : Discover if the 20% pre-deposit for tax disputes is always mandatory or if there are exceptions. Learn about discretionary powers ...
Income Tax : The CBDT implements the interim budget's historic announcement of waiving old tax demands up to specified amounts for certain fina...
Income Tax : KSCAA Representation regarding adjustments (over and above 20% of disputed demand) by CPC despite assessments pending before first...
Income Tax : Grievances and suggestions with respect to the functioning of Demand Facilitation Center, CPC (DFC) in connection to the outstandi...
Income Tax : The Taxpayer can submit the response online to the outstanding demand by performing the below steps. 1. Go to the Income Tax e-Fil...
Income Tax : CBDT desires that all the work related to cleaning up of the tax demands and calculating the tax payable or refundable in respec...
Income Tax : Verify online notice/order issued by the Income Tax Department Now Taxpayer can verify notice/order issued by the Income Tax Depar...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the judgment from Madras High Court on G.K. Reddy's case against DCIT. Court rules pension cannot be attache...
Income Tax : Assessee had not been able to make out a prima facie case in its favour and had a ‘lot to answer’ in the appeal. Assessee's pl...
Income Tax : Delhi HC directs refund of Income Tax amount exceeding 20% of the demand. Read about the Max Life Insurance case and the decision ...
Income Tax : ITAT reversed the demand under Section 200A attributable to merely wrong mention of TAN in the TDS deposit challan...
Income Tax : Uptill AY 2016-17, if a scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the return is not required to be processed u/s 143(1) for grant of r...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 01 of 2023 by Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), exploring implications for income tax payers and their response...
Income Tax : ADVISORY NO.: 45 Dated:- 14.07.2022 0/o PCDA(0) Pune, Public Relation office (PRO) Subject: Income Tax Demand Notice under section...
Income Tax : Corrigendum to Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 16.10.2020 for exercising power of intrusive or coercive ...
Income Tax : The functionality of demand adjustment by AO u/s 245 can be accessed while passing assessment order, rectification order into the ...
Income Tax : As per the Central Action Plan issued for the F.Y. 2017-18, all pending appeals having tax effect of Rs. 50 crore or more are to ...
High Courtheld that the any action of revenue to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the assessee’s application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Further, an application for stay should be disposed off by a speaking order.
The Tribunal granted 100 percent stay of demand because (a) the assessed income was more than 10 times the returned income. (Instruction 96 of 1969 was relied upon) & (b) The stand taken by the AO was at variance with the stand taken by TPO.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued directions to the field offices that taxpayers whose tax has been deducted at source but not deposited to the Government’s account by the deductor, will not be asked to pay the demand to the extent tax has been deducted from his income.
In cases where that tax payer has contested the demand, CPC would issue a reminder to the assessing officer about the contention of the taxpayer, asking him to either confirm, or make appropriate changes to the demand within thirty days. In case no response is received from the AO within thirty days, CPC would issue the refund without any adjustment. The responsibility of non-adjustment of refund against outstanding arrears, if any, would lie with the assessing officer,
With a view to streamline the process of grant of stay of demand when the case of the taxpayer is pending before Commissioner (Appeals) and to standardize the quantum of lump sum payment required to be made by the assessee as a pre-condition for stay of demand disputed, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued fresh guidelines to the field authorities of the Income Tax Department.
Under the existing provisions of section 281 B the Assessing Officer may provisionally attach any property of the assessee during the pendency of assessment or reassessment proceedings, for a period of six months with the prior approval of the income- tax authorities specified therein, if he is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of the revenue. Such attachment of property is extendable to a maximum period of two years or sixty days after the date of assessment order,
Income-tax Department is also issuing instruction making it mandatory for the assessing officer to grant stay of demand once the assesse pays 15% of the disputed demand, while the appeal is pending before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
The CBDT has issued Office memorandum F.No.404/72-93-ITCC dated 29.02.2016 by which it has revised Instruction No. 1914 dated 21.03.1996 and issued fresh guidelines for stay of demand at the first appeal stage.
Under Section 281B, AO has the power to provisionally attach the assets, with the approval of the CIT/CCIT. Such attachment is supposed to be temporary, with a limit of 6 months, extendable to a maximum of 24 months. However, in view of the fact that in many such cases, the proceedings itself get stayed as a result of applications made by the taxpayer, the time limit has been amended by the Finance Act 2014 till 60 days after assessment.
Under the existing regime for recovery of demand, Assessing Officers insist upon collecting disputed demands even when they are in appeal. The situation is aggravated in years when the revenue collection targets are ambitious. In practice, this is leading to serious hardship to the taxpayer particularly in cases where there is high-pitched assessment. Experience has shown that generally an application under section 220(6) for not treating the assessee as being in default is routinely rejected.
