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...
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that denying the entire construction cost while computing capital gains is unjustified. The Assessing Officer must verify the valuation report and determine a reasonable cost of construction.
Hriday Vs ITO (Exemption) (Delhi High Court) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, decided a batch of five appeals filed by a charitable society registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010–11 to 2014–15. The appeals challenged a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) […]
The Tribunal refused to condone an 840-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee claimed the Chartered Accountant failed to inform about the assessment order. It held that a taxpayer must remain vigilant about proceedings and cannot shift full responsibility to the counsel.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment proceedings. Since the final assessment was not completed ex-parte, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
The Tribunal ruled that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied by aggregating separate shareholdings to invoke Section 13(2)(e). It held that no office bearer individually held substantial interest, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld addition under Section 69 as the assessee failed to establish that the LIC investment belonged to the HUF. Mere assertion of agricultural income without documentary evidence was held insufficient.
The High Court held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269SS. In the absence of such finding in the assessment order, the penalty was set aside.
