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...
Despite large additions for alleged unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment itself. It reaffirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without proper and reasoned approval.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and seized digital data cannot survive without allowing cross-examination. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reassessment is invalid where the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Absence of a valid and timely notice strikes at the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
Purchase Date Doubts Not Enough to Deny LTCG Exemption: ITAT Mumbai held that transfer dates shown in share certificates satisfied the statutory holding requirement.
The Tribunal set aside the interest disallowance after noting that the underlying loan genuineness issue was already remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of interest after noting fresh evidence indicating business utilisation of borrowed funds. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with an opportunity to substantiate the claim.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
The Tribunal ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied retrospectively for demonetisation-period transactions. As the tax effect at normal rates fell below the monetary limit, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
