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 : Where unaccounted sales were established through seized material, only the net profit embedded therein was liable to tax, and not ...
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 : 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 erroneous recomputation of LTCG causing double taxation. The Tribunal held that credit for LTCG already declared must be given and indexation cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Rejecting contradictory treatment, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the lender’s scrutiny while taxing the borrower under section 68. The addition was therefore deleted.
The issue was whether Section 153C proceedings for seven years could rest on a single satisfaction note. ITAT held that absence of year-wise satisfaction vitiates jurisdiction, quashing all assessments.
The ITAT held that an unsigned and unexecuted seized agreement cannot establish receipt of cash. The key takeaway is that additions under Section 69A require proof of actual receipt, not mere allegations.
ITAT Delhi held that cash is duly recorded in the books of accounts hence addition of the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Appeal of the revenue dismissed.
The issue was whether the appellate order properly dealt with bogus purchase additions. ITAT held that a non-speaking NFAC order violating section 250(6) must be set aside.
The issue was whether common and ritualistic approval under section 153D can sustain search assessments. ITAT held that mechanical approval without independent application of mind vitiates the entire proceedings.
The notice under section 143(2) did not conform to the CBDT-prescribed format. ITAT ruled that a defective notice strikes at jurisdiction and invalidates the assessment.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from genuine sales already recorded in books cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. The key takeaway is that such additions amount to impermissible double taxation.
The issue was whether bank credits already offered as income in an HUF’s return could again be taxed in the individual’s hands. ITAT held that double taxation is impermissible and directed the AO to verify HUF records before making any addition.
