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 Tribunal ruled that once the original notice itself is jurisdictionally invalid, later compliance with section 148A is irrelevant. Foundational defects cannot be remedied procedurally.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not disputed, the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be added under section 69C. Only the embedded profit element is taxable.
The assessment was quashed because the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction must exist at the notice stage itself.
The Tribunal ruled that revising Form 10 during assessment does not invalidate a trust’s accumulation claim when the original form was filed on time. The key takeaway is that revised filings before assessment completion are permissible.
The Court set aside a rectification rejection passed before the scheduled hearing date, holding that Section 154(3) requires a prior opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with natural justice.
The Delhi High Court held that a draft assessment order issued against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid. Such proceedings suffer from a substantive jurisdictional defect.
The Court held that reassessment was invalid where deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was lawfully claimed by a co-operative society. It ruled that interest from co-operative banks remains deductible when the assessee is not a co-operative bank.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
Automated risk alerts are delaying income-tax refunds without clear reasons. The law allows withholding only through statutory processes, not internal analytics.
Madras High Court held that reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years is sustainable in law since assessee has failed to set out truly and fully all the material facts.
