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 : ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during c...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that once a search under Section 132 was conducted, the assessment for the relevant year had to proceed under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal condoned the delayed appeal filing after finding sufficient cause and allowed the matter to proceed. It also clarifie...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi ruled that the CIT(A) cannot reclassify an addition under a different provision of the Income-tax Act without issui...
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 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.
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.
