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 Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the i...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of...
Income Tax : The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as m...
Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Off...
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...
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid where the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during original scrutiny. In absence of failure to disclose, reopening under Section 147 was quashed.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment beyond four years is barred when reasons do not allege failure to disclose material facts. Mere suspicion of escaped income is insufficient to override the statutory limitation.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Payments made pursuant to allotment confer valuable property rights. Their relinquishment through an agreement to sell amounts to a statutory transfer, entitling the assessee to compute gains or losses under capital gains.
The Tribunal distinguished cases of jurisdictional defect and upheld the assessment where the initial notice was lawfully issued. The key takeaway is continuity of valid scrutiny proceedings despite AO change.
The Tribunal held that the case transfer under section 127 was invalid as it was passed by a non-jurisdictional authority. Since jurisdiction itself failed, the entire assessment was declared void ab initio.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
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.
