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 Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) rightly restricted disallowance on account of unexplained bank deposit and withdrawal under section 68 of the Income Tax Act to 0.3% of total Circular Trading Transaction. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ensuring that the sale is recorded in the system and adds a layer of authenticity.
Assessee then filed returns in response to the notice under Section 148, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. AO disallowed the deduction, stating that the returns were not filed within the due date under Section 139(1).
Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceeding u/s. 148 initiated against non-existing company is not sustainable in law in as much as the department was already informed about the merger. Accordingly, notice quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided for amount of understated/ suppressed net profit. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and penalty upheld.
ITAT Jaipur held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by ACIT, Jaipur, is illegal and liable to be quashed since ITO-Delhi has jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment framed u/s. 148A(d) without application of mind and without controverting the explanation of the assessee is bad in law and is accordingly being quashed. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of communication from ACIT, without independent application of mind, is invalid and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on record incriminating the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 deleted.
ITAT Jaipur held that amount of sundry debtor recorded in books of account are not any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and hence doesn’t qualify as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
