Income Tax : Learn about common income tax notices for salaried individuals, their implications, and steps to handle them effectively. Avoid le...
Income Tax : Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible...
Income Tax : Learn about rectifying mistakes in income tax orders under Section 154, including types of rectifiable orders, responsible authori...
Income Tax : Learn about the Faceless Income-Tax Proceedings, including e-Proceedings features, differences from manual assessments, and how to...
Income Tax : Understand the implications of receiving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Learn how to respond, time limits, a...
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 Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) rightly restricted disallowance on account of unexplained bank deposit and withdrawal under sectio...
Income Tax : Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ...
Income Tax : Assessee then filed returns in response to the notice under Section 148, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. AO disallowed the...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceeding u/s. 148 initiated against non-existing company is not sustainable in law in a...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justifiable since no plausible explanation provided fo...
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...
ITAT held that in view of non-cooperation on the part of the assessee before lower authorities for verification of it’s own documents/ claims cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the assessee to be deposited into Prime Minister Relief Fund.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA(3) TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior to the date prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, in present case, TPO order passed on 30/01/2015 instead of 29/01/2015 is non-est and liable to be quashed as being barred by limitation.
Explore the recent ITAT Dehradun judgment in Uttarakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO case, challenging AO’s premature jurisdiction assumption under section 148
ITAT Chennai held that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment is bad in law and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards short term capital loss treating it as bogus unsustainable as transaction of purchase and sale of shares done through banking channel and STT duly paid thereon.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal set aside Notice under Section 148 by making observation that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint the failure at the end of the assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly, which led the escapement of income from taxation.
Explore the case Fab Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, where ITAT Ahmedabad upheld disallowance on long-term capital loss claim from sale of company shares.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment liable to be quashed as PCIT simply rubber-stamped the attempt of AO to reopen the assessment without inquiring about various basic issues involved in the matter like applicability of section 50C, cost of acquisition and claim of deduction u/s 54EC.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per Section 56(2)(ix) of the Act money received as advance would be treated as income liable to tax in the hands of recipients under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ provided such advance is forfeited and the negotiations do not resulted in transfer of the capital assets.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
