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...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that income disclosed under the VDIS does not prevent tax authorities from scrutinising returns where material shows higher undisclosed income. Immunity under the Scheme applies only to the income actually declared.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
The issue concerned treating business creditors as unexplained cash credits due to non-response to notices. The Tribunal held that corroborative balance sheets and ledger evidence warranted fresh verification, and remanded the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty proceedings are consequential to assessment. When the assessment issue is pending before the High Court, penalty cannot be enforced.
The Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that repeated reopening cannot survive where statutory timelines are breached. A reassessment initiated beyond the permissible surviving period was quashed in entirety.
The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 143(2) notice is compulsory once a return is filed under Section 148. Absence of such notice vitiates jurisdiction and nullifies the reassessment.
The Tribunal examined whether a creditor’s unilateral write-off automatically results in cessation of liability for the assessee. It held that such write-off requires factual verification and cannot, by itself, trigger addition under section 41(1).
The Tribunal examined whether a large consultancy payment was allowable when the assessee failed to establish its genuineness and business necessity. It upheld the disallowance, holding that mere claims without credible evidence cannot justify deduction of professional expenses.
High Court quashed the adjustment made in the intimation under Section 143(1) disallowing deduction under Section 10B and declared the rectification order to be null and void as allowability of deduction under Section 10B was examined during regular assessment proceedings and accepted
