Income Tax : Learn about common income tax notices for salaried individuals, their implications, and steps to handle them effectively. Avoid le...
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 : 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 Bangalore held that provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to assessee bank and consequently the...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai: Valid 12AA registration bars AO from denying Sec 11 exemption by re-examining charitable objectives. Key ruling expla...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that trade advances, being in the nature of commercial transaction, would not fall within the ambit of the provis...
Income Tax : Thereafter, there was change in incumbent and fresh opportunity was provided and notice u/s.142(1) was issued. But this notice was...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by treating LTCG as bogus merely on the basis of assumption a...
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...
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that CPC wrongly processed return by considering due date as 5th August instead of 31st October. Accordingly, interest charged under section 234A of the Income Tax Act deleted and interest charged under section 234B altered.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of entity from which share application money is received.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions made under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act by considering the stamp duty value on the date of registration of agreement as prescribed under section 43CA(3) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”.
The assessee filed three appeals against order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14. It is important to note that inspite of putting up the case of hearing several times, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Deepak Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar and others, group of cases based at Delhi.
Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
