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 Tribunal held that unexplained cash credit addition cannot survive once identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are established through documentary evidence. The key takeaway is that mere low income of creditors is insufficient without contrary investigation.
The Tribunal held that delayed responses to statutory notices do not attract penalty when full compliance is ultimately made and accepted before assessment completion. The key takeaway is that penalties cannot be imposed mechanically in the absence of willful default.
Cash deposits arising from routine business collections cannot be wholly treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that estimations must reflect the nature of the taxpayer’s business.
ITAT Pune held that non-examination of issue of depreciation claimed on goodwill justifies invocation of revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order sustained and appeal of assessee dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest on income-tax refund is taxable in the year of receipt and qualifies for Section 80-IA deduction, regardless of the year to which the refund relates.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
The Tribunal ruled that additions made on issues beyond limited scrutiny were without authority since proper conversion to complete scrutiny was not followed. The key takeaway is that violating CBDT instructions renders the entire assessment void.
The Tribunal ruled that estimating higher profit without rejecting audited books or finding major defects is impermissible. The declared 7% margin was accepted as reasonable, emphasizing limits on ad-hoc profit estimation.
The Court examined a reassessment initiation where the assessee was given less than 24 hours to respond. Holding this to be contrary to Section 148A(b) and natural justice, the order and notice were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where no incriminating material was found during search. Documentary evidence proving the loan’s genuineness was accepted.
