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...
The issue was whether purchases recorded by the assessee were genuine. The Tribunal held that seized Tally data and statements proved bogus purchases, justifying full addition.
The ITAT ruled that accumulated building funds carried forward from previous years are not taxable in the year under scrutiny. The decision reinforces that taxation must align strictly with the year of receipt.
Since the mandatory notice was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, the assessment was quashed as void ab initio. A valid notice by the correct officer within limitation is indispensable.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The tribunal held that amounts already disclosed and taxed as accommodated receipts cannot be taxed again under another head. Separate additions were deleted as they resulted in impermissible double taxation.
The issue was whether reassessment completed after a court stay complied with statutory timelines. The Tribunal held that limitation resumes from the date the stay is vacated, rendering the reassessment time-barred.
The dispute concerned enhancement of house property income based on an unsigned lease found during search. The Tribunal held that such a document has no evidentiary value and cannot support additions.
The Tribunal affirmed restricting Section 14A disallowance to the actual exempt income earned. It also held the Finance Act, 2022 explanation to be prospective, protecting taxpayers for earlier years.
The issue was whether CBDT jewellery instructions could shield bullion found during a search from taxation. The Tribunal held that the instruction applies only to jewellery, not bullion, and upheld the Section 69A addition.
The issue was whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by audited books, sales records, and accepted VAT returns, no addition can survive.
