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 found that the assessee’s audited accounts, finalized before demonetisation, clearly established sufficient cash balance to cover the ₹14 lakh deposit. Since Revenue produced no evidence of inflation or manipulation, the addition under Section 69A could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in refusing to consider the USAID–AE agreement, which directly established the back-to-back cost-plus-6% model. It ruled that such crucial evidence cannot be dismissed on a procedural technicality and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Kolkata held that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement under Section 133A. Proper verification of stock and business records is required before treating income as undisclosed.
Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties under Section 37(1) and not deductible.
ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal after noting the CIT(A) ignored a revised Tax Audit Report proving timely PF/ESI payments. Key takeaway: revised audit reports must be considered before confirming disallowances under Section 36(1)(va).
The tribunal confirmed that in search assessments under section 153A, no separate notice under section 143(2) is required. The assessee’s procedural objection was dismissed, aligning with Delhi High Court precedent.
ITAT Pune ruled that a primary credit cooperative society can claim deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest and dividend income from other cooperative banks, overturning Revenue’s appeal.
ITAT allowed assessee’s appeal against Section 68 addition, stressing that AO must evaluate annual business activity, stock, and legitimate cash sales. This decision safeguards traders during exceptional periods like demonetization.
Madras High Court held that development charges paid to SIPCOT not being capital asset doesn’t qualify for the claim of depreciation. However, the same qualifies as revenue expense and assessee entitled to claim deduction @5% as SIPCOT would deduct 5% every year.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
