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...
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.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due dates is not allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the same is an incorrect claim and therefore it falls within the scope of prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Assessees could not claim cost of improvement and indexation cost as assessee had to furnish some evidence and in the absence of any evidence or information, the information contained in the registered sale deed was required to be accepted.
ITAT Mumbai held that action of Pr. CIT invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as order passed by the A.O. does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
