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 : 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 : The case involved disallowance of employee contributions during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable issues ca...
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...
Revenue submitted that the order was issued in order to meet statutory limitation deadlines. During the hearing, both assessee and the authority agreed that assessee had an alternate remedy under Section 246A, along with the option to seek condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
ITAT Panaji held that ad-hoc determination of taxable income without invoking special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act not only jostled ad-hoc & irrational estimations but led to farfetched determination due to complexity of business. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
Gauhati High Court held that Summary of SCN issued in Form GST DRC-01 doesn’t substitute proper SCN. Thus, mere issuance of summary of SCN is not valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.
Allahabad High Court held that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of return is not mandatory and if “genuine hardship” is shown then delay may be condoned. Accordingly, delay in filing Form 10-IC condoned and order quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act only on the basis of suspicion of involvement in money laundering activity without cogent material brought is bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Reassessment proceedings could not be sustained in respect of other issues raised in the audit except in respect of two specific expenditure heads: processing charges and professional fees as the same could be treated as “information” under Section 148A.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 68 towards bogus LTCG set aside as sale transaction of shares cannot be doubted. Thus, sale consideration received on sale of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act being passed without waiting for the response of the assessee and without providing thirty day time for filing response is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Delhi High Court held that the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act cannot be available here as reference made for information under Indo-Swiss DTAA was invalid. Accordingly, questions to law as framed are answered against the Revenue.
Mumbai ITAT allows full depreciation for New Rampgreen Technologies, citing asset ownership date. It also voids the reassessment, holding that the tax audit report was already with the AO, preventing a ‘change of opinion’ based reopening.
