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 : Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves...
Income Tax : A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the ori...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘defi...
Income Tax : Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that me...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue prior notice before making adjustments violates the mandatory provisions of Section 143(1...
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 Jaipur held that disallowance of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of bonafide error in ITR is not justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed and benefit granted.
Gujarat High Court overturns lower court, orders Rs. 13 lakh robbery cash to be handed to Income Tax Department for undisclosed income probe.
ITAT Mumbai held that since donations collected were parked in savings bank account of assessee and funds were used for personal purpose hence donation collected are taxable u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
Trust has adopted the mercantile system of accounting for the AY 2011-12 for which depreciation of ₹ 8.55 lakhs is to be accepted which the authorities have not accepted, same ought to have been allowed as depreciation being notional expenditure.
Gujarat High Court held that requisition of seized cash allowed under section 132A of the Income Tax Act and directed that the income tax department shall be free to undertake all actions permitted under the law and shall deposit the entire amount in the P.D. Account.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts. Accordingly, order along with notices are liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cash deposited is out of the gross receipts and that once gross receipts are disputed then no addition is sustainable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent and addition deleted.
Assessee challenged this, arguing the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Supreme Court ruled that notices after 31.03.2021 had to follow the amended Section 148A.
Bombay High Court held the reopening of assessment initiated on the basis of subsequent information justified as based on such information transaction was prima facie found to be undisclosed funds routed through various tax havens companies.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that customs authority doesn’t have authority to pass an order of provisional attachment under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 during pendency of investigation. Accordingly, freezing of bank account not justified.
