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...
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.
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.
