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 Ahmedabad held that initiation of reopening of assessment based on mere change of opinion and not taking into account the work-in-progress method of accounting followed by the assessee is unjustifiable and liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that entire process of according sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act for initiation of reassessment granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind is unjustified and hence reassessment proceedings quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act unjustified when an assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reopening of assessment after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year without failure on part of the petitioner to disclose any material fact fully and truly is unsustainable in law.
Re-opening of assessment by AO was unjustified if the original return had not been processed by following the decision in case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 37 DTR (Chennai) (T.M) (Trib).
Supreme Court held that High Court was bereft of the power to quash a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, using the powers inherent to it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as long as there was no consent from the complainant.
Rajasthan High Court held that since reassessment order is distinct and different, the period of limitation for exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act would be the date of original assessment order. Thus, entire proceedings barred by limitation.
ITAT Raipur held that interest expenditure incurred for earning income chargeable under the head “Income from other sources” is allowable as deduction under section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that failure of PCCIT to satisfactorily record its concurrence and granting of approval for reopening of assessment without application of mind invalidates the order issued u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from penalty and prosecution, by accepting the explanation ‘in the spirit of settlement’ cannot be faulted.
