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...
The ITAT held that reassessment cannot be sustained when additions are ultimately made on issues not mentioned in the recorded reasons for reopening. The AO’s jurisdiction failed because no valid addition survived on the original escapement issue.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
The Tribunal ruled that the Delhi Assessing Officer could not legally assess the taxpayer when jurisdiction continued to remain with Mumbai authorities. The decision underscores that jurisdiction cannot shift without following statutory procedures.
The Tribunal held that property investment funded through documented foreign remittances from the assessee’s husband could not be treated as unexplained. Bank records and remittance confirmations established the complete source of funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on generalized investigation findings. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry arrangement and deleted both additions.
The Hyderabad ITAT found contradictions in the TPO’s reasoning for excluding a comparable company due to alleged lack of RPT data. The Tribunal directed fresh verification and recomputation of the RPT filter before deciding whether the company should remain excluded.
The Tribunal held that a university is substantially financed by the Government only when Government grants exceed 50% of total receipts during the relevant previous year. Since the prescribed threshold was not met, the exemption was denied.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
The Bangalore ITAT held that Section 54 relief cannot be denied when capital gains are invested in a new residential house before filing the return under Section 139(4). The Tribunal ruled that such investment satisfies the statutory requirement even without a prior deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.
