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 : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
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 : 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 Tribunal upheld 200% penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income through ineligible deductions. Admitted incorrect claims were treated as conscious misrepresentation, not a bonafide error.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening based merely on audit objection without independent application of mind is unsustainable. An audit note cannot replace the Assessing Officers reasoned belief.
The ruling explains that DVO reference is a procedural safeguard, while the safe harbour proviso grants substantive relief. Both provisions can be applied simultaneously where conditions are satisfied.
Penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was set aside, holding that only the Assessing Officer is empowered to levy such penalty. The Tribunal further ruled that once quantum addition is deleted, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The case involved additions for alleged suppressed sales and purchases based on seized digital material. The Tribunal ruled that once search material exists, the AO must invoke Section 148 with proper approval, making the 143(3) assessment legally unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that balancing figure between the slump sale consideration and the value of identifiable tangible assets represents goodwill or commercial rights in the nature of an intangible asset, and depreciation thereon is allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
ITAT ruled that mere acceptance of exemption without examining statutory amendments constitutes non-application of mind. The Principal Commissioner rightly invoked Section 263 where binding High Court rulings were ignored.
The Tribunal observed that the AO disallowed 50% of warranty provisions and 25% of liabilities without justification. It held that in absence of specific defects in remand proceedings, such ad hoc disallowances cannot survive.
