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 ITAT granted relief by ruling that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to income voluntarily disclosed during a survey if no specific unexplained cash credit or investment section (like 68 or 69) was invoked. The Tribunal held that the disclosed income remains taxable, but only at normal tax rates.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that the power to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 is invalid when a valid return is on record and the Assessing Officer still has time to initiate regular scrutiny under Section 143(2).
The ITAT set aside the entire reassessment, holding that a valid notice is a mandatory jurisdictional step, citing the Supreme Court’s Hotel Blue Moon ruling. Since the two notices issued were defective (one premature, the other beyond the statutory time limit), the assessment was deemed illegal.
Reassessment order passed under Section 147/143(3) was quashed on the ground that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the assessee filed the return in response to notice under Section 148, rendering the assessment void ab initio.
Late Mahabir Prasad (through L/H Mrs. Parul Kansaria) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Restricts Additions in Search Assessment – Statement Alone Not Incriminating- No Addition in Concluded Years Without Incriminating Material- Unaccounted Sales – Only GP Taxable, Not Entire Turnover Bangalore ITAT dealt with additions arising out of search proceedings in the A-One Steel […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Kolkata has ruled in favor of Surya Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., invalidating a tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
CESTAT Delhi held that in case common input services are used for providing both taxable and exempted services, proportionate amount of CENVAT credit must be reversed as per rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, demand confirmed to that extent.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellant is entitled for refund of credit admissible on account of payment of Countervailing Duty [CVD] and Special Additional Duty [SAD] paid after 01.07.2017 [paid after Central Goods and Services Tax].
An analysis of Section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, detailing the powers of the Assessing Officer, statutory limitations, and remedies available to taxpayers.
