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 Ahmedabad held that in case of two contrary decision by non-jurisdictional High Courts, decision favourable to the assessee shall apply. Thus, order of CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act upheld.
However, the completed/unabated assessments could be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 and those powers were saved.
ITAT Ranchi held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution without deciding the matter on merits is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remanded back for de novo adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of section 263 by PCIT unjustified due lack of sufficient evidence to support claim that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The assessee is a co–operative credit society, registered under Maharashtra co–operative society Act, 1960 and is engaged in providing credit facilities to those CIDCO employees who are members of credit society.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee has established that they were the sole developer in the contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is liable to be paid by the company which declares, distributes or pays the same. Petitioner, herein, has received interest income from Non-convertible debentures and accordingly cannot be subject to DDT.
Delhi High Court held that mechanical approval granted by PCIT, vide general order of approval for all the 111 cases without satisfactorily record, for action under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
Assessee-partnership firm had filed its income tax return declaring income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, focusing on the issues such as investment in immovable property and share capital/other capital.
Allahabad High Court held Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax guilty under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and imposed fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
