Income Tax : Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible...
Income Tax : Learn about rectifying mistakes in income tax orders under Section 154, including types of rectifiable orders, responsible authori...
Income Tax : Learn about the Faceless Income-Tax Proceedings, including e-Proceedings features, differences from manual assessments, and how to...
Income Tax : Understand the implications of receiving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Learn how to respond, time limits, a...
Income Tax : Learn how online gaming habits can lead to income tax scrutiny notices under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understan...
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 : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment under Section 148 due to improper approval process, emphasizing the need for compliance with Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that assessments for defective returns must be made under Section 144, invalidating prior orders issued under Sect...
Income Tax : Assessee was in the business of construction and in developing housing complexes i.e to construct the property and sell it therefo...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order without mandatory service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act i...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that CBDT vide notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 has authorised ACIT / DCIT to act as prescribed ...
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 Kolkata held that when date of agreement and date of registration are not same, then, stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be considered. Accordingly, since difference is less than 10%, hence addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A r.w.s. cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the content of the statements. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
Delhi High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax are prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that the cash deposits are made out of the sale proceeds of the assessee and in my opinion the assessee has properly explained the source of the cash deposits along with documentary evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely taking second opinion unjustified. Further, view taken by AO cannot be set aside or deferred as per provisions of section 263.
ITAT Kolkata held that allotment letter given by the developer to the assessee way back in 2010 would be construed as an agreement of purchase between the developer and the assessee. Thus, addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act not survived.
AO without going through the terms and conditions of each of the project that had been undertaken by assessee during the year had come to the conclusion that assessee was a works contractor and not a developer.
Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the authority issuing the notice dated 23.06.2024 is a prescribed income-tax authority, he cannot issue a notice but can merely serve a notice.
Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii).