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...
The present case revolves around the Duty Drawback Scheme. This scheme has become the subject of misuse by some traders/ exporters who make fraudulent exports merely with a view of availing the benefits under the scheme.
Patna High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of incorrect information which was not supported by any material is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed.
Thereafter, there was change in incumbent and fresh opportunity was provided and notice u/s.142(1) was issued. But this notice was returned back with the remarks that “the assessee was not in given address”.
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that PCIT cannot exercise revisionary power u/s. 263 to restore an issue for the purpose of verification only since restoring matter for verification means that PCIT is not sure of assessment order being erroneous causing prejudice to the revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to EPF and ESI in terms of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act can be made based on auditor’s observation. Accordingly, disallowance upheld.
In Peter Vaz vs CIT, Bombay HC rules ITAT erred in barring Sec 153C challenge & refusing delay condonation. Cites Rule 27, Balakrishnan (SC). Matter remanded.
Gujarat High Court held that re-opening of assessment solely relying upon information made available on the insight portal, without forming any independent opinion, is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition on the basis of loose papers and documents found from the premises of third party is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed since addition not based on substantial evidence.
Addition based on the District Valuation Officer’s (DVO) report, which exceeded the stamp duty value was upheld as assessee challenged to DVO’s valuation was arbitrary without any supporting evidence.
