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...
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee could not respond to certain notices. The case was restored for reconsideration after giving adequate opportunity.
The Madras High Court held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid where the assessee had already disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal relied on official certificates confirming that the land was located beyond municipal limits and classified as agricultural. Since agricultural land is excluded from capital asset definition, the addition made under Section 56 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that when the difference between purchase price and DVO valuation falls within the 10% tolerance band, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii). The addition based on stamp duty value was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal examined a case where the assessee failed to substantiate purchases and sundry creditors with supporting documents. It upheld estimation of income at 8% of turnover as a reasonable method when the genuineness of expenses could not be proved.
ITAT Delhi held that while selecting the comparables transactions or entities, in case of international transactions, the basis should be one of similarity with the control transactions/entities and mere broad similarity is not sufficient.
ITAT held that delay in filing Form 9A cannot automatically result in denial of exemption under Section 11. The issue was sent back for reconsideration after examining the condonation application before the Commissioner.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that when an adjustment made in the CPC intimation is subsequently deleted in appeal, the scrutiny assessment relying on that adjustment cannot continue. The income was therefore restored to the amount originally declared by the assessee.
