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 : Budget 2021- Allowing prescribed authority to issue notice under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 Section 142 of the A...
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 : Explore the Rajasthan High Court's judgment on delayed ITR filing, emphasizing the necessity of 'mens rea' for offense establishme...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court upholds the discretion of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, stressing that it should not be reviewed as ...
Income Tax : Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-operative Societies Union Ltd. vs JCIT: ITAT upholds jurisdiction limitation, dismissing appeal regar...
Service Tax : Read the full text of the CESTAT Mumbai order allowing refund of service tax paid on cancelled bookings of flats by Kanakia Spaces...
Income Tax : Punjab and Haryana High Court grants waiver of Section 234A interest in tax case, considering old age and illiteracy of the taxpay...
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...
Read the detailed analysis of CPF (India) Private Limited Vs ACIT case where Madras High Court annulled assessment proceedings due to violation of Sec 144B procedure.
ITAT Kolkata held that it is unjustified to assess share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 merely for high share premium as identities and creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transactions duly established.
Karnataka High Court held that incorrect claim or erroneous claim would not amount to willful evasion. Further, mere fact of not accurate tax, not exact tax or erroneous tax would not lead to the proceedings under Section 276 of the Income Tax Act.
Even if the service tax had been deposited by the appellant after 01.01.2017, nonetheless the refund of any amount of the CENVAT credit could be claimed only under subsection (3) of section 142 of the CGST Act and against this order an appeal will lie to the Tribunal.
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
Since the claim for refund could not be withheld merely because the Department, pursuant to the deposit, issued the SCN and was proposing to demand GST.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of four years unjustified as all the particulars with regard to sale of agricultural land was disclosed before AO in full extent.
Jharkhand High Court held that initiation of prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in absence of any demand, as demand adjusted against refund, is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that only the mistake apparent from record which can be rectified but where two views are possible or there is a debate available, it cannot be rectified u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of four years in absence of full and true disclosure of material facts is bad in law.
