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 issue was denial of deduction due to delayed filing of Form 56F. ITAT held that delay is a procedural lapse and directed allowance of deduction.
The case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld the addition, ruling that failure to report such receipts in any year makes them taxable in the year of receipt.
The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was excessive despite lack of full documentation. It allowed 50% deduction considering business necessity. Key takeaway: partial evidence can justify partial allowance.
The issue was failure to pass a final assessment order after DRP directions within the statutory timeline. The Court held the assessment invalid and time-barred, quashing the proceedings.
The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribunal held that due date depends on the class of assessee, not procedural lapses, and allowed Section 115BAA benefit.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
The Tribunal upheld reduced addition as earlier years’ rulings fixed profit element at 0.2%. It stressed that consistent facts require consistent treatment. Key takeaway: uniform approach must be followed across years.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹4.83 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that a bona fide difference in share valuation methods (NAV vs DCF) does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars; mere rejection of a claim cannot trigger penalty.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69A since the evidence pertained to a partnership firm. It held that without proof of personal receipt, income cannot be taxed in the partner’s hands.
