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...
The ITAT held that a scrutiny assessment cannot survive where the jurisdictional Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that the defect rendered the entire assessment void ab initio despite transfer of the case.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed through e-Proceedings must be digitally signed as required by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2018. Since the order was manually signed without any prescribed exception, it was quashed.
The Tribunal distinguished between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry, holding that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desired further verification. Since the AO had examined the evidence, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that documentary evidence established the genuineness of the share transactions and the Revenue failed to connect the assessee with any price manipulation. The addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Calcutta High Court held that an assessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on the legal ground.
The ITAT Pune upheld the deletion of an addition made by extrapolating a small unreconciled difference in Form 26AS to the entire year’s receipts. It held that the Assessing Officer’s approach ignored the revised reconciliation and could not form the basis for estimating undisclosed income.
Tribunal observed that it is for the businessman to decide how to organise business finances unless there is evidence of tax evasion. It deleted the Section 68 addition after finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds.
ITAT Delhi held that merely reflecting depreciation in an incorrect schedule of the income tax return could not justify an addition under Section 69. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
