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...
Explore the recent ITAT Dehradun judgment in Uttarakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO case, challenging AO’s premature jurisdiction assumption under section 148
ITAT Chennai held that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment is bad in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards short term capital loss treating it as bogus unsustainable as transaction of purchase and sale of shares done through banking channel and STT duly paid thereon.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal set aside Notice under Section 148 by making observation that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint the failure at the end of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly, which led the escapement of income from taxation.
Explore the case Fab Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, where ITAT Ahmedabad upheld disallowance on long-term capital loss claim from sale of company shares.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment liable to be quashed as PCIT simply rubber-stamped the attempt of AO to reopen the assessment without inquiring about various basic issues involved in the matter like applicability of section 50C, cost of acquisition and claim of deduction u/s 54EC.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per Section 56(2)(ix) of the Act money received as advance would be treated as income liable to tax in the hands of recipients under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ provided such advance is forfeited and the negotiations do not resulted in transfer of the capital assets.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for delay in furnishing of audit report not leviable on account of reasonable cause shown that delay was due to the death of director who was also an accountant of the company.
Delhi High Court supports Valley Iron & Steel Co.’s voluntary enhancement of disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis and implications here.
