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...
Delhi High Court held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act against merged company is invalid as company is dissolved after Scheme of Arrangement. Thus, writ petition is allowed and notice/ order quashed.
Bombay High Court held that once search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act is the foundation of the case, assessment could be initiated only under section 153A/ 153C. Thus, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the assessee is dead no valid assessment or reassessment can be made in the name of the deceased. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 upon the deceased assessee who expired prior to issuance of notice is invalid.
ITAT Pune held that delay in filing audit report in Form 10CCB due to technical problem is justifiable and hence denial of claim under section 80IAC of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, order set aside to AO to consider audit report.
Assessee submitted share valuation report which was not as per rule 11UA but valuation of shares was done as per ‘Adjusted Net Asset Method and as per ‘future earning analysis.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment is based on change of opinion since exact entry which was already scrutinised and accepted by department during scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, re-opening u/s. 148 is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that mere non-production of director cannot be the ground for making any addition in the hands of assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Lucknow held that delay of 4 days erroneously calculated as delay of 551 days by CIT(A). Accordingly, directed CIT(A) to consider request of condonation and if found appropriate to grant opportunity of being heard.
Kerala High Court held that court cannot interfere with order of settlement commission if challenge is merely that Settlement Commission has chosen to take one of two possible views that can be legally taken in respect of an issue. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Karnataka High Court held that delay in filing of income tax returns results into imposition of penalty and prosecution. Payment of penalty for delay in filing return doesn’t exonerate petitioner from being prosecuted.
