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...
Petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and the Bombay Public Trusts Act of 1950. It has more than 3800 members comprising of Advocates, Chartered Accountants, and tax practitioners.
Summary of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmar vs. CIT (Appeals) for AY 2017-18. Case remanded for reassessment, emphasizing natural justice.
The Settlement Commission held that the rectification of errors under Section 154 was confined to arithmetical or clerical errors and assessee’s application was beyond the scope of the Section 154.
Kerala High Court held that revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act righty invoked as claim was accepted by assessing officer without any enquiry. Accordingly, jurisdiction rightly invoked.
ITAT remits the case of Rahul Kumar Singh to the AO after the assessee’s failure to respond to notices, directing the inclusion of new evidence submitted by the appellant.
AO had raised queries on two issues i.e. (i) assessee claimed only 15% depreciation on the Higher Efficiency Boilers (being energy saving device), when it was eligible for depreciation allowance of 80% on the Written Down Value (WDV).
Kerala High Court held that revisionary proceedings by PCIT u/s. 263 rightly exercised since claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts was assumed by assessing officer to be correct without adequate enquiry. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits not justified as CIT(A) has partly accepted the cash book and partly rejected the cash book without assigning any reason. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Whether or not a permanent establishment existed in a State during a given period must be determined on the basis of the circumstances applicable during that period and not those applicable during a past or future period.
NCLAT Delhi held that unilateral revocation of guarantee by the guarantor does not absolve him from his obligations under the guarantee agreement as the Financial Creditor has not agreed to such revocation.
