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 Mumbai held that employee’s contribution paid on day next to the due date and due date being a national holiday. Matter remanded back to AO for examining the payments made and allowing the deduction u/s 36(1)(va).
Finance Act, 2023 introduced amendments to Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This article provides an overview and analysis of the amendments, including changes to inquiry before assessment, expenses of audit or inventory valuation, opportunity of being heard, time limits, power to make rules, and the valuation of inventories.
ITAT Delhi held that as the original return was only processed u/s 143(1), AO can duly initiate re-opening of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act so as to bring the escaped income into tax.
Delhi High Court held that case can duly be transferred from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to Central Circle by way of passing order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh held that disallowance for late deposit of employees’ share of PF/ ESI contribution to relevant funds beyond prescribed due date under respective Act is duly sustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition sustained as onus to prove genuineness of the transaction is not proved by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that to burden assessee with capital gain arising out of transfer of immovable property or an interest in it, the cost of acquisition is necessarily to be established. Here, cost of acquisition of so called right of preemption is considered as NIL. Hence, computation provisions fail, therefore capital gains could not have been calculated.
ITAT Jaipur held that there cannot be a second round of penalty for same defaults. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act for second time is unsustainable.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of sales reversal entry alleging the same as unexplained expenditure is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO took the plausible view of granting the benefit of mutuality after due application of mind. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked merely because PCIT may entertain a different view in the matter.
