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...
The assessees long-term capital gains claim was upheld as genuine. In absence of direct evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, the Section 68 addition was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside denial of exemption where authorities taxed interest and other receipts without examining eligibility under Section 11. The issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(A)’s findings while restricting addition to 12.5% of purchases. As key facts were not properly examined, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that assessment orders in e-proceedings must be digitally signed as per CBDT instructions. A manually signed order was held illegal and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held allotment letter is an agreement to sell; stamp duty value on booking/allotment date applies u/s 56(2)(x) where payments were via banking channels. ₹45.03L addition set aside for verification.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains treated as bogus could not be added in a completed assessment year absent search-based incriminating evidence. Investigation reports alone were held insufficient.
ITAT Mumbai quashed 143(3) order post-search, deleted ₹96.77L suppressed sales addition, allowed Sec 37(1) expenses & CWIP write-off as revenue in 153A assessment.
ITAT held that though Section 151A was on statute, it required notification to take effect. As the order preceded notification, the assessment was quashed in entirety.
The ITAT Kolkata held that earnest money received under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), which was later refunded through banking channels upon cancellation of the agreement, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
