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...
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that denying the entire construction cost while computing capital gains is unjustified. The Assessing Officer must verify the valuation report and determine a reasonable cost of construction.
Hriday Vs ITO (Exemption) (Delhi High Court) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, decided a batch of five appeals filed by a charitable society registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010–11 to 2014–15. The appeals challenged a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) […]
The Tribunal refused to condone an 840-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee claimed the Chartered Accountant failed to inform about the assessment order. It held that a taxpayer must remain vigilant about proceedings and cannot shift full responsibility to the counsel.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment proceedings. Since the final assessment was not completed ex-parte, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
The Tribunal ruled that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied by aggregating separate shareholdings to invoke Section 13(2)(e). It held that no office bearer individually held substantial interest, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld addition under Section 69 as the assessee failed to establish that the LIC investment belonged to the HUF. Mere assertion of agricultural income without documentary evidence was held insufficient.
The High Court held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269SS. In the absence of such finding in the assessment order, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that once loan transactions are routed through banking channels and identity and genuineness are established, the assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. The unsecured loan addition of Rs. 60 lakh was deleted.
