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 revision is valid when political donations were not fully verified. The Tribunal held that failure to examine genuineness of donees justifies action under Section 263.
The Tribunal examined demonetisation-period cash deposits and held that prior cash withdrawals supported by bank records could not be disregarded. The ruling clarifies that additions cannot rest on assumptions about personal conduct.
The dispute concerned denial of exemption on the ground of alleged business activity. The Tribunal held that once registration under Section 12AA stood restored, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied.
Relying on precedents including rulings of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal held that extrapolation across years is impermissible. The addition was struck down as being based on assumption rather than evidence.
The Tribunal held that once business receipts are taxed on an estimated basis, separate additions for payments and assets from the same receipts are impermissible. Only a net-profit estimation was sustained, deleting multiple cascading additions.
The tribunal accepted that allotment confers enforceable capital rights capable of transfer. The ruling clarifies that proceeds from such transfers must be assessed under capital gains, not deemed income.
The tribunal refused to admit a fresh legal challenge to reassessment raised for the first time. However, it remanded the revenue-difference addition for fresh adjudication due to natural justice concerns.
Payments made pursuant to allotment confer valuable property rights. Their relinquishment through an agreement to sell amounts to a statutory transfer, entitling the assessee to compute gains or losses under capital gains.
The tribunal held that cash deposits were largely explained through earlier withdrawals and business receipts. Only an estimated 10% addition was sustained, and harsh taxation under section 115BBE was ruled out.
Tribunal held that an assessment is void when the competent officer does not issue the mandatory notice. Jurisdiction cannot arise without a valid section 143(2) notice.
