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...
The Tribunal found that notices issued manually by the jurisdictional officer contravene the faceless reassessment framework. There is no concurrent jurisdiction between faceless and jurisdictional officers. Any reassessment initiated this way is invalid from inception.
The Tribunal held that after 29-03-2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices under Section 148. Notices issued by a jurisdictional officer were declared void, vitiating the entire reassessment.
ITAT Bangalore rules that Section 80P deductions cannot be claimed if the return is filed after the due date. The decision reinforces compliance with Section 80AC(ii) and aligns with Madras HC precedent.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The Tribunal remanded the MAT issue after noting lack of factual verification on whether reserve withdrawals were credited to the P&L account. Key takeaway: MAT adjustments under section 115JB require strict, evidence-based verification.
The ITAT held that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional bench. An appeal filed before the wrong Tribunal is liable to dismissal at the threshold.
The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is invalid. Such a defect strikes at the root of the assessment and cannot be cured.
The Tribunal held that a bad debt claim involving factual and legal analysis cannot be disallowed during section 143(1) processing. Such issues must be examined through regular assessment proceedings, not summary adjustments.
The case revolved around treating bank deposits as unexplained income without following the statutory mandate of rejecting books of account. The Tribunal reaffirmed that compliance with section 145(3) is mandatory before estimation, and granted full relief to the assessee.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
