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 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 : ITAT Delhi held Section 68 inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as i...
Income Tax : Madras HC held that merely issuing a corrigendum acknowledging the return did not rectify the defective assessment process and ord...
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 the CIT(A) validly remanded a best judgment reassessment after repeated non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) empowered the appellate authority to order a fresh reassessment.
The High Court held that closing the Income Tax portal before the granted response deadline denied the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity. It restored the assessment proceedings and directed the authorities to enable document upload.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that certified segmental financial information could not be rejected mechanically without identifying defects. It remanded the issue to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an ₹80 lakh addition after holding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender companies. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot rest solely on suspicion of circular transactions without corroborative evidence.
The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlights the extended filing timeline and the revised rules governing reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessments were invalid because the ACIT was not shown to have jurisdiction under CBDT Instructions or the Income-tax Act. The assessment orders were quashed without examining the merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by treating capital gains as business income without obtaining mandatory approval for complete scrutiny. The appeal was partly allowed on this technical ground, and the merits were not examined.
The ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction cannot confer valid authority to complete an assessment. It quashed the assessment after finding that the jurisdictional officer also failed to issue a fresh statutory notice.
