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 : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that additions made in an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be disputed in an appeal against a scrutiny a...
Income Tax : Interest on delayed payment of the FM radio migration fee was a compensatory business expenditure deductible under Section 37(1); ...
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 : 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...
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment year because the Assessing Officer relied solely on entries in the regular books of account. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s mandate that no addition is permissible in completed (unabated) assessments without specific, incriminating material seized during the search.
The ITAT ruled on a Transfer Pricing adjustment, holding that companies failing the 75% export filter (MAA Business Solutions) and the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter (WNS Global) must be excluded from the comparable set for ITES providers. The Tribunal directed a fresh re-computation of the arm’s length price (ALP) after applying correct filters, providing relief to the assessee.
ITAT annulled an assessment and addition of $\text{Rs. }31.80$ crore of share capital made under Section 153C, ruling that the jurisdiction was invalid for an unabated assessment year. The key takeaway is that for an already completed assessment, the AO must rely on incriminating material found during the search, not mere statutory documents already in the books.
The ITAT held a reassessment under sections 144/147 void due to the absence of a mandatory 143(2) notice. Revenue’s claim that participation cures defects under 292BB was rejected, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory notice requirements.
The ITAT quashed an assessment where the taxpayer’s declared income exceeded the Rs.30 Lakh limit for an ITO in a metro city. Relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and Calcutta High Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that the assessment suffered from a lack of inherent jurisdiction and was void ab initio.
The ITAT quashed a scrutiny assessment because the Rs.143(2) notice was issued by the ITO, a junior officer, despite the declared corporate income exceeding the Rs. 30 Lakh metro city limit. Jurisdiction for issuing the notice and conducting the assessment belonged solely to the DCIT, making the entire proceeding illegal.
The Tribunal confirmed that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. Following Calcutta High Court precedents, the ITAT rejected the Revenue’s attempt to apply the prospective Finance Act 2022 amendment to the relevant assessment year (AY 2014-15).
The ITAT invalidated an assessment due to two fundamental defects: the 143(2) notice was invalid as it failed to specify the type of scrutiny (Limited/ Complete) per CBDT instructions, and the assessment was completed by the ACIT, who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the Rs.10.41 Lakh income case. The ruling stresses that procedural compliance with binding CBDT instructions is mandatory, or the entire assessment becomes void.
This decision emphasizes that violation of binding CBDT instructions, such as failing to specify the category of scrutiny in the Sec. 143(2) notice, strikes at the root of the assessment. The Kolkata Tribunal quashed the entire Sec. 143(3) assessment as being without jurisdiction, affirming that legal grounds can be raised at any stage.
ITAT condones 498-day delay & remands case for de novo assessment, ruling that a mere mistaken capital gains declaration by a previous representative doesn’t create tax liability. AO must verify if actual property transfer occurred, as documents show no sale.
