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...
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
The Tribunal deleted ₹35.22 lakh added under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetisation. It held that audited books, recorded cash sales, and sufficient cash balance fully explained the deposits.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking Section 68 on member deposits of a cooperative society was unjustified. Proper books, cash records, and member-wise details were ignored by the AO.
Rejecting reliance on time lapse and regulatory issues, the Tribunal held that a trading liability remains valid unless actually extinguished. The addition under Section 41(1) was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that passing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is not a mere procedural defect. It held that participation in proceedings does not validate a void assessment.
ITAT upheld deletion of additions where assessment was framed under the wrong provision. Since the year fell within the block period of a non-searched person, Section 153C was mandatory.
ITAT ruled that revisionary powers cannot be invoked on vague suspicion. Where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are documented and examined, Section 263 cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal ruled that once cash sales are recorded in books and included in declared turnover, separate addition of deposits would result in double taxation. The entire ₹4.74 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that Goetze (India) does not bar appellate authorities from entertaining new claims. Where all facts are on record, the claim must be examined on merits.
