Income Tax : ITAT held that a return filed under section 148 remains valid even if delayed. Failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that an assessment is void when the competent officer does not issue the mandatory notice. Jurisdiction cannot arise...
Income Tax : A surge in Section 143(2) notices was triggered by the June 2025 limitation deadline. This explains why cases were picked and how ...
Income Tax : Automated risk alerts are delaying income-tax refunds without clear reasons. The law allows withholding only through statutory pro...
Income Tax : Faceless Income-tax proceedings and e-assessments under Section 144B simplify taxpayer compliance. Use the e-filing portal for ele...
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 : Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty ra...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the...
Income Tax : Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section...
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 Delhi held that CIT(E) has rejected application for registration u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act without giving cogent reason by disposing the matter in hyper technical manner without discussing on merits is not tenable in law.
In Peter Vaz vs CIT, Bombay HC rules ITAT erred in barring Sec 153C challenge & refusing delay condonation. Cites Rule 27, Balakrishnan (SC). Matter remanded.
Gujarat High Court held that re-opening of assessment solely relying upon information made available on the insight portal, without forming any independent opinion, is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that reasons recorded for selecting case for scrutiny never mentioned that case was selected for limited scrutiny hence approval for conversion not required. Matter remanded to CIT(A) to decide case based on merits.
Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2018, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs.20,98,730/-.
ITAT Raipur held that vacating addition/ disallowances by CIT(A) based on additional documentary evidences filed before him without confronting AO is against the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, matter restored back to AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is permitted to set off unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 against short term capital gains. Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition on the basis of loose papers and documents found from the premises of third party is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed since addition not based on substantial evidence.
Bombay High Court held that order passed without granting an opportunity of being heard is passed against the principles of natural justice and accordingly, is liable to be quashed. Thus, petition is allowed and orders are quashed.
Orissa HC upholds faceless assessment, ruling that notice sequence under Sections 142(1) & 143(2) is immaterial. Petition dismissed; appeal option open.
