Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The article explains that 30 June is the Department's deadline to issue scrutiny notices for eligible returns, not a filing deadli...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
Income Tax : Read how Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association addresses last-minute case reallocations affecting timely issuance of notices...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has ruled that it is mandatory for the Income Tax Department to issue notice within the prescribed time limit of...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held Section 68 inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as i...
Income Tax : Madras HC held that merely issuing a corrigendum acknowledging the return did not rectify the defective assessment process and ord...
Income Tax : Understand the guidelines set by the Indian Ministry of Finance for the compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny duri...
Income Tax : CBDT hereby authorises the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (NaFAC) having her / his headqua...
Income Tax : The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection}, Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scruti...
Income Tax : Central Board of Direct Taxes, with approval of the Revenue Secretary, has decided to modify notice under section 143(2) of the In...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of excess tax paid.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and earlier acquisition of foreign investments.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft under Section 144C.
ITAT Delhi held Section 68 inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as income, avoiding double taxation.
Madras HC held that merely issuing a corrigendum acknowledging the return did not rectify the defective assessment process and ordered reconsideration.
ITAT Delhi held that IT, salary and travel reimbursements without any profit element were not taxable and deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).
The High Court held that an assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice detailing the proposed additions violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings after issuing a proper notice.
The Madras High Court held that assessment proceedings should include a show cause notice identifying the proposed additions before passing the final order. The assessment orders were treated as show cause notices and remanded for fresh consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessees bona fide belief, based on the Departments consistent acceptance of interest income as Income from Other Sources, amounted to reasonable cause under Section 273B. The penalty under Section 271B was deleted.
ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate restriction by the AO.
