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...
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 on the issue which is already dealt in the original assessment void ab initio and bad in law since no new fresh material was pointed out at the time of reopening of assessment.
The CIT(A) has also not given any independent finding after verifying that whether there is an actual syncronised trading between the assessee and that of company scrip i.e. M/s. Radhe Developers Ltd.
The AO proceeded to treat the transactions as penny stock and relying on the investigation report on penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,28,58,450/-.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed without compliance with mandatory requirement of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, order passed u/s. 144 r/w 147 set aside.
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that CPC wrongly processed return by considering due date as 5th August instead of 31st October. Accordingly, interest charged under section 234A of the Income Tax Act deleted and interest charged under section 234B altered.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of entity from which share application money is received.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
