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...
It was ruled that interest for late filing of the original return can be computed based on tax determined in search-related assessment. Timely filing after notice does not negate earlier delay.
While alteration of the cheque amount is a material alteration under law, the court ruled that consent and responsibility for alteration are factual questions. The complaint was not quashed at the pre-trial stage.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
The Tribunal held that when reassessment is based on material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. Reopening under Section 147 was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
It was ruled that substituting sale consideration with stamp duty value during CPC processing is impermissible. Such action deprives taxpayers of the statutory right to seek DVO valuation.
It was held that sale consideration from trust property, when donated to charitable institutions, cannot be taxed as income. The ruling confirms protection for genuine charitable application of capital receipts.
The dispute involved whether the Varanasi Bench could adjudicate an appeal arising from a Kolkata-based assessment. The Tribunal held that filing before an incorrect Bench is fatal and parties must approach the jurisdictional Tribunal.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could survive when no incriminating material was found for an unabated year. The tribunal held that without search-based evidence, the completed assessment could not be disturbed.
The ITAT held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
