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...
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.
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.
