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 Delhi held that transfer of shares of company by one set of shareholders to another set of shareholders does not give rise to any taxable event in the hands of company and has no tax incidence in the hands of the company whose shares were subject matter of transfer.
The assessee company is engaged in business of manufacturing and has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 27/09/2012 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,21,67,790/- and the return of income was processed u/sec. 143(1) of the Act.
The petitioner’s challenge to the notice dated 23.06.2024, issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, is premised on the basis that it has been issued by an officer, who is not a „prescribed income-tax authority’.
Delhi High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax are prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in statement of profit & loss account.
It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the authority issuing the notice dated 23.06.2024 is a prescribed income-tax authority, he cannot issue a notice but can merely serve a notice.
According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 imported manufacturing machines without payment of central excise duties of Rs.10,14,099/- and custom duties of Rs.51,00,988/- for the manufacturing of export goods.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as PCIT already decided the matter in favour of the assessee while invoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. According, reassessment action quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that belated return of income filed by payee u/s. 139(4) satisfies the 1st proviso to section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act hence assessee cannot be treated as ‘assessee in default’.
ITAT Jaipur held that mere entering into the Development Agreement would not permit invocation of section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act. There is no positive act which indicates that the assessee has treated capital asset as stock-in-trade.
