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 Tribunal held that reassessment after four years requires PCIT approval, not Additional CIT. The invalid sanction led to quashing of the Section 148 notice and dismissal of Revenue’s appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established a prima facie case regarding deduction eligibility for habitable-unit expenditure.
Court emphasizes procedural compliance in PAN usage, quashing notice and order issued under surrendered PAN and ensuring proper reassessment steps.
ITAT Mumbai invalidated the reassessment for AY 2008-09 because the notice under section 148 was issued after the statutory limitation period and contained a clerical error in the assessment year. The ruling underscores the necessity of strict procedural compliance for reassessment.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that amount paid to clear mortgage/encumbrances on title of property is rightly claimed as deduction under section 48(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
ITAT remanded the unexplained cash credit addition for verification of full loan repayment, highlighting that repayment within a reasonable time negates the addition under section 68.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to examine inventory-related documents before sustaining disallowance under section 37(1). The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all evidence.
The Tribunal found that notices lacking classification as limited, complete, or manual scrutiny violated CBDT instructions. As a result, the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed as void ab initio.
ITAT held that bank deposits consistent with declared fruit business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68; the addition of ₹1.29 crore was directed to be treated as genuine receipts.
The Kerala High Court held that scrutiny of exempted trust returns was correctly conducted as complete scrutiny, allowing assessment of appropriation of receipts under Section 12A.
