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...
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from bank deposits is attributable to its core business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), reversing the denial by lower authorities.
The tribunal held that commission paid to overseas agents was a normal business expense and not taxable in India. Since no TDS was required, disallowance under section 37(1) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while arbitrary disallowances are not sustainable, inadequate substantiation justifies estimation. Disallowances were restricted to 50% to balance fairness and compliance.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could alter income despite a valid APA and modified return. The Court held that without an adverse TPO audit or APA cancellation, reassessment adjustments were without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether a ₹3.05 crore disallowance under section 14A could stand without nexus to exempt income. The ITAT held that only a reasonable amount with clear linkage can be disallowed, capping it at ₹10 lakh.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked to deny 80P deduction on interest from co-operative bank deposits. The ITAT held that such revision is invalid when the AO has taken a legally settled and permissible view.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
The dispute involved alleged non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment procedure rendering the order non est. The ITAT held that remanding without ruling on section 144B(9) violations is impermissible.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained despite full documentation. The ITAT held that once loans are repaid and identity and genuineness are proved, section 68 cannot be invoked.
