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 Mumbai held that passing of assessment order without mandatory service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified. Accordingly, assessment order being passed sans serving notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that CBDT vide notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 has authorised ACIT / DCIT to act as prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that unreasoned order confirming addition passed ex-parte is against the principal of natural justice and hence the matter is restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the issue of reopening was examined in the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the reason framed under wrong facts are not valid reason, therefore such reasons to believe cannot be sustained. Thus, reopening of assessment quashed.
ITAT Kolkata cancels ₹20,000 penalty imposed on SNG Microns by NFAC, citing lack of proper notice and communication as grounds for the decision.
The petitioner’s challenge to the notice dated 23.06.2024, issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act, is premised on the basis that it has been issued by an officer, who is not a „prescribed income-tax authority’.
Assessee was engaged in the business of purchasing and renting properties, as also the entire income of the assessee was based on the income received from leasing its properties.
ITAT Kolkata held that when date of agreement and date of registration are not same, then, stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be considered. Accordingly, since difference is less than 10%, hence addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A r.w.s. cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
Delhi High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax are prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
