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...
ITAT Raipur held that AO having jurisdiction over the case passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2). Accordingly, the matter quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional AO.
CESTAT Mumbai held the penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as appellant being custodian of Container Freight Station not only failed to fulfil the conditions and to abide by the responsibilities reposed on them as Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) by assisting in illegal removal of seized red sanders.
ITAT Raipur held that reopening of completed assessment beyond four years without failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts is unjustified and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on the utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of excise duty by 100% EOU units during debonding. Detailed analysis and implications.
Delhi High Court sets aside Assessment and Penalty Orders due to AO’s oversight and insufficient response time, remanding matters for a fair hearing.
Bombay High Court held that jurisdiction to assess/ reassess u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act in respect of unabated/ completed assessments without any incriminating material found during the search unjustified.
Discover pivotal case of Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs ITO, where ITAT Dehradun established that Section 142(1) and 148 cannot operate simultaneously, leading to quashing of reassessment proceedings.
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.
