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 Chennai restored the matter back to the file of AO since CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence which was sought by AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Jaipur held that since there is neither error of law nor of facts, the twin condition as required to revise the assessment order is not met out and hence invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law.
A similar claim for deduction as was raised by assessee-firm in the preceding year had been allowed by the department, but also the fact that the GP/NP rates of assessee firm were progressive as in comparison to the preceding year.
According to AO, the provisions were not allowable who vide show cause notice asked assessee to furnish details of the provisions made as well as justification for the claim and the assessee did not file any reply to the show cause notice issued.
Assessee had consistently shown the plots as investments in earlier years and that the nature of income could not be determined solely based on the nature of the business for tax audit purposes.
Assessee had strongly contended that he was unaware of who Shri Kaustubh Latke and Shri Shailesh Patil are, since they were not connected with him or Rucha Group.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act against merged company is invalid as company is dissolved after Scheme of Arrangement. Thus, writ petition is allowed and notice/ order quashed.
ITAT Kolkata rejects appeal delayed by 2655 days, citing assessee negligence despite CA/advocate failure; Sumita Roy Chowdhury case.
ITAT Rajkot held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act not sustained since assessee has adequate evidence supporting its claim of cash deposits. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that PCIT cannot term order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely for non-production of Form 3CL for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.
