Income Tax : An analysis of Section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, detailing the powers of the Assessing Officer, statutory limitations, and ...
Income Tax : Discover pivotal case of Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs ITO, where ITAT Dehradun established that Section 142(1) and...
Income Tax : Finance Act, 2023 introduced amendments to Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This article provides an overview and anal...
Income Tax : Understand the implications of Income Tax Act Sections 142 and 142A, covering notices to submit returns, making inquiries, and pro...
Income Tax : Explore the nuances of Income Tax Notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn when these notices are issued, h...
Income Tax : Oracle India has approached Delhi High Court challenging the order of the government which had asked it to undertake a special aud...
Income Tax : Sub-sections (2A) to (2D) of section 142 deal with power of Assessing Officer to order a special audit. Such power is required to ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the i...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of...
Income Tax : The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as m...
Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Off...
Income Tax : CBDT hereby authorises the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (NaFAC) having her / his headqua...
Income Tax : It has also been brought to notice of the Board that in some cases, the address of transacting parties given in AIRs is not comple...
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the issue was highly debatable at the relevant time.
The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of declaration, not the original assessment year. The reassessment addition for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny amounted to a mere change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were therefore quashed as invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as mandated by law. The Tribunal quashed the tax adjustment denying concessional tax benefits because the mandatory opportunity of response was not provided.
The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer changes his opinion on the same material. The Court reaffirmed that reassessment requires tangible material showing escapement of income.
The case involved disallowance of employee contributions during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable issues cannot be adjusted under Section 143(1) and deleted the addition.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening invalid when based on existing records and no failure of disclosure.
Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves & Surplus in the Balance Sheet and the same has to be routed through the Profit & Loss Account to arrive at the correct book profits u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the original return submitted u/s 139(1).
Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘deficiency in service’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, compensation entitled to be awarded to the consumer.
