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...
Held that the cash deposits are made out of the sale proceeds of the assessee and in my opinion the assessee has properly explained the source of the cash deposits along with documentary evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely taking second opinion unjustified. Further, view taken by AO cannot be set aside or deferred as per provisions of section 263.
ITAT Kolkata held that allotment letter given by the developer to the assessee way back in 2010 would be construed as an agreement of purchase between the developer and the assessee. Thus, addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act not survived.
AO without going through the terms and conditions of each of the project that had been undertaken by assessee during the year had come to the conclusion that assessee was a works contractor and not a developer.
Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the authority issuing the notice dated 23.06.2024 is a prescribed income-tax authority, he cannot issue a notice but can merely serve a notice.
Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii).
Assessee was engaged in the business of slimming and beauty services. During assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee was carrying substantial credit balances as current liabilities under the head ‘Advance from customers’.
ITAT Surat held that if the order passed in the original proceeding itself is illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings. Thus, revision order u/s. 263 quashed as order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B is invalid.
ITAT Surat held that addition based on unsigned, undated and unstamped Satakhat/ sale and purchase agreement cannot be sustained since such document has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69B deleted.
