Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The article explains that 30 June is the Department's deadline to issue scrutiny notices for eligible returns, not a filing deadli...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
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 : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that additions made in an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be disputed in an appeal against a scrutiny a...
Income Tax : Interest on delayed payment of the FM radio migration fee was a compensatory business expenditure deductible under Section 37(1); ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
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...
Since reasons recorded by AO to form prima facie conclusion that there was likelihood of any gain on account of revenue expenses incurred by assessee was also without any basis in the absence of any fresh tangible material available with the respondent AO as the fact remained that assessee had unrealized gain and unrealized loss which was not claimed and duly reflected in the computation income as assessee had claimed only bank charges expenditure for hedging of foreign currency.
In Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, it is held that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the AO has passed the assessment order would have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 260A of the Act.
Assessee-company was involved in manufacturing tractors, agricultural equipment, and spare parts, also operated a technology center providing IT and engineering services to Deer Associates.
PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 in the case of Bank of Maharashtra allowing deduction under Section 36(1)(via) as Assessing Officer’s (AO) assessment order was not erroneous, even if it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Aggrieved by the order passed by AO, assessee moved on with an appeal to CIT(A), where assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that Section 148 was not justified.
A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s case on 14.11.2019. AO observed that during the course of search action, a pen drive was found from the cabin of the Head-Cashier.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan is untenable since loans accepted were repaid in the same year and all the transactions were carried out through banking channels. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
It was held that transactions and FAR of assessee were similar to AY 2021-22 and as per the records brought to our notice, there was no change in the activities carried out by assessee in the current assessment year and subsequent assessment years.
Madras High Court held that once the purchase of machinery itself was found to be false and the transaction was sham, the claim of depreciation cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed, accordingly.
ITAT Chennai held that material/ information referred by AO in reasons recorded cannot be held to be tangible material hence reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without tangible material is invalid.
