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 : 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 : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
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 case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld the addition, ruling that failure to report such receipts in any year makes them taxable in the year of receipt.
The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was excessive despite lack of full documentation. It allowed 50% deduction considering business necessity. Key takeaway: partial evidence can justify partial allowance.
The issue was failure to pass a final assessment order after DRP directions within the statutory timeline. The Court held the assessment invalid and time-barred, quashing the proceedings.
The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribunal held that due date depends on the class of assessee, not procedural lapses, and allowed Section 115BAA benefit.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
The Tribunal upheld reduced addition as earlier years’ rulings fixed profit element at 0.2%. It stressed that consistent facts require consistent treatment. Key takeaway: uniform approach must be followed across years.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹4.83 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that a bona fide difference in share valuation methods (NAV vs DCF) does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars; mere rejection of a claim cannot trigger penalty.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69A since the evidence pertained to a partnership firm. It held that without proof of personal receipt, income cannot be taxed in the partner’s hands.
Even though the assessee had no business operations, claims based on disclosed assets and records were held bona fide. The Tribunal ruled that such claims do not amount to inaccurate particulars or misreporting.
