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 : 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 : The Tribunal quashed the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to issue notice under Section 143(2). The de...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid where the satisfaction note for the non-searched person was recor...
Income Tax : Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under t...
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 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.
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.
