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 held that reassessment based only on the Shah Commission report, without independent material or application of mind, is invalid. Reopening beyond four years after full disclosure was quashed, nullifying additions and penalties.
ITAT held that entire cash deposits of a business correspondent cannot be treated as unexplained income without verification. The AO must examine whether deposits were bank collections or the assessee’s own money.
The ITAT Pune held that splitting royalties for domestic vs export sales was impermissible, deleting the entire transfer pricing adjustment. The ruling reinforces that TNMM aggregation for manufacturing includes royalties as a single element.
The Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
The Court held that once evidence under Section 145 NI Act has commenced, returning the complaint solely due to the 2015 jurisdictional amendment is improper. It restored the case to the Kolkata court, emphasizing continuity of proceedings and preventing prejudice to either party.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
The Tribunal held that reliance on the remand report without giving the assessee a chance to rebut violated natural justice. While the jurisdiction challenge was rejected as time-barred under section 124(3), the ₹5.80 crore LTCG addition was sent back for fresh examination. The case underscores that appellate authorities must provide fair opportunity before upholding major additions.
The Tribunal held that failure to file a return under section 139 or within the 148-notice deadline triggers Explanation 3, deeming concealment regardless of later tax payment. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s imposition of ₹30,000 was contrary to Section 272A(1)(d), which permits only ₹10,000 per statutory default. As only one true default existed, the excess penalty was deleted. Key takeaway: penalty must be grounded strictly in statutory authority, not administrative repetition.
ITAT Bangalore set aside reassessment orders for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, ruling that failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act invalidates the proceedings.
