Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The article explains that 30 June is the Department's deadline to issue scrutiny notices for eligible returns, not a filing deadli...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
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 : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that additions made in an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be disputed in an appeal against a scrutiny a...
Income Tax : Interest on delayed payment of the FM radio migration fee was a compensatory business expenditure deductible under Section 37(1); ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
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 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.
Reviewing Panchiram Nahata Vs ITO case, where ITAT ruled that notional interest income could not be estimated for making disallowances out of interest expenditure
