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 Mumbai held that the Indian Subsidiary operating in an independent manner doesn’t constitute as a “Permanent Establishment” in India and hence income of the assessee is not allowable to be taxed in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on statement of the key person which was retracted subsequently unsustainable as genuineness, identity and creditworthiness proved.
In this article, we discuss ITAT Mumbai’s decision in Hiranandani Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs CIT case regarding set-off of brought forward losses and impact of Section 79 on individual shareholding changes.
ITAT Kolkata held that the assessee has no permanent establishment in India and these services were also rendered outside India but the services has been used in India and, therefore, it is taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that entire assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity is null and void and hence is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that Broadcasting Reproduction Right is not covered under the definition of Royalty under the Income Tax Act as well as Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
In a significant decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of D.C. Polyester Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed for incorrect income head treatment.
Analysis of ACIT Vs Karsan Bhai Khimabhai Patel case where AO’s lack of independent inquiry invalidated unexplained investment addition. Learn more about ruling.
In the case of Talshibhai B Narola vs. ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that income from nursery activities growing lawns, flower plants, and vegetable plants is agricultural, not business income.
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
