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...
The tribunal set aside excessive addition by recognizing both the allotment agreement and joint ownership. It directed proportionate taxation and correct valuation basis. The ruling promotes fairness in assessments.
The Tribunal upheld that ESOP discount is a valid business expense under Section 37(1), rejecting the view that it is notional or capital. The key takeaway is that ESOP costs are allowable as employee compensation.
The Tribunal held that updated returns filed during ongoing assessment proceedings are not valid under Section 139(8A). The key takeaway is that taxpayers cannot correct returns once scrutiny has begun, though limited relief may still be granted.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an unauthorized officer renders the entire assessment invalid. It ruled that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured and quashed the assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted. The only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
ITAT held that CSR contributions can qualify for deduction under Section 80G if conditions are met. The ruling clarifies that there is no blanket prohibition on such claims under the law.
The ITAT held that reopening was invalid as it was based on the same material already examined during the original assessment. It ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a concluded issue.
The tribunal held that addition under Section 69C is not valid where expenditure is properly recorded and the source is explained. The key takeaway is that documented transactions through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained.
In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal admissibility and evidentiary value.
The Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
