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 Delhi High Court held that an assessment order cannot be remanded to the AO without adjudicating the validity of the Section 144 order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide jurisdiction first.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 292-day delay in filing an appeal due to the assessee’s age, dependence, and overseas travel. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication of capital gains, ensuring fair opportunity and justice.
The Tribunal found that once additional evidence is admitted and remand is called for, the Assessing Officer must be given an effective opportunity to respond. Deciding the appeal without waiting for the remand report was held to be legally unsustainable.
ITAT Pune ruled that the Maharashtra PSI-2007 subsidy of ₹37.85 crore is a capital receipt. The order reversed CIT(A) and AO’s revenue treatment, protecting the assessee from taxation.
The ITAT held that income appearing in Form 26AS cannot be taxed unless actually received when the assessee follows cash accounting. The ruling confirms that 26AS entries alone cannot justify additions.
ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. Revenue cannot levy additions where investments are legitimate and documented.
ITAT Delhi remands addition of ₹78.12 lakh under Section 68, allowing assessee to prove lessees’ agricultural use. Proper verification and opportunity are essential before denying Section 10(1) exemption.
ITAT Delhi allowed travelling and visa expenses paid by assessee’s sons as wholly & exclusively for business purposes in overseas education consultancy. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural delay of 5 days should not defeat substantive justice, partly allowing the appeal.
Tribunal remanded the case after finding that documentary evidence submitted during assessment was not examined. The matter is sent back for fresh evaluation with an opportunity of hearing.
Court upholds ITAT’s refusal to stay tax recovery, citing the petitioner’s prolonged inaction and failure to meet conditions. Key takeaway: procedural lapses undermined the stay request.
