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 Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the i...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of...
Income Tax : The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as m...
Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Off...
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...
Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section […]
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue prior notice before making adjustments violates the mandatory provisions of Section 143(1)(a). Such procedural lapse renders the entire adjustment legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made without issuing prior notice to the assessee violate the mandatory proviso to Section 143(1)(a). Such actions were declared legally unsustainable and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The case addressed whether a special audit can be ordered without establishing complexity or defects in accounts. The Court examined whether mechanical invocation of Section 142(2A) without proper justification is legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that adding both cash deposits and withdrawals may result in double taxation. The case was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity.
The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid when the assessee has fully disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny. The reassessment was quashed for lack of new material evidence.
The ITAT Chennai held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Additions based only on special audit findings were therefore quashed.
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
