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 Delhi held that Compulsory Convertible Debentures are in the nature of borrowed fund and continued to be debt till conversion thereof into shares and consequently interest on Compulsory Convertible Debentures is allowable as revenue deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest paid towards refund of excess claim of duty drawback is not in the nature of penalty or fine. Accordingly, provisions of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the I.T. Act not violated.
Gujarat High court held that reasons recorded while issuing notice u/s 148 was that capital gain on sale of property was not reflected in return and hence income has escaped assessment. However, factually, capital gain was already reflected in the return and hence it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence reopening unsustained.
Delhi High Court held that in respect of Special Audit remuneration under section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act invocation of provisions of MSMED Act not tenable and completely misplaced. Accordingly, the Income Tax Act would thus prevail over the provisions of the MSMED Act.
ITAT Pune held that omission of claiming long term capital loss at the time of filing of original return was not bona fide. Accordingly, rejection of claim of the same in revised return unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Gujarat High Court held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance as per section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act sustained as amount of employees’ share of contribution of PF/ESI not paid within due date stipulated in the respective Act.
ITAT Raipur held that A.O after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee could not have based his assessment on the said books of accounts. Accordingly, once the books of account of an assessee are rejected, then profit has to be estimated.
ITAT Kolkata held that in respect of any adjustment proposed to be made u/s 143(1)(a), a prior intimation is required to be served on the assesse. Failure to issue such prior intimation to the assessee before making an adjustment by way of disallowing the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is unjustified.
ITAT Raipur held that payment towards purchase of beer from the State Government is an exception to the applicability of section 40A(3). However, brushing aside the said objection/ response filed by the assessee had rendered entire mechanism provided u/s 143(1)(a) as redundant and otiose.
