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...
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.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void in law. A valid notice must be issued to the legal heirs under Section 159 before initiating reassessment.
Bombay High Court held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are invalid if prior intimation is not issued and response not considered, reaffirming mandatory compliance.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
The Court quashed assessment and appellate orders for denying exemption on technical grounds. It emphasised that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and must rectify errors.
The Tribunal found that denial of foreign tax credit during return processing was improper where Form 67 and the return were filed together. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow credit.
The Court ruled that reopening based solely on an audit objection amounts to change of opinion if the issue was previously examined. Without fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings are unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based merely on audit objection without independent application of mind is unsustainable. An audit note cannot replace the Assessing Officers reasoned belief.
