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 Delhi held that addition towards cash deposit during demonetization period is not sustainable since the same is redeposit of cash which was withdrawn for making salary payment or incurring any expenditure. Accordingly, the addition is deleted.
The issue was whether a single, consolidated approval under section 153D for multiple assessees is legally valid. The ITAT held that such mechanical approval shows no application of mind and vitiates the entire search assessment.
The issue was whether alleged negative stock justified profit estimation. The Tribunal held that value-based assumptions using average GP could not override item-wise quantitative stock records maintained on a daily basis.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice dispatched after the new law took effect must follow Section 148A, and failure to do so invalidates the entire proceedings.
The issue was whether a hydro power subsidy should reduce the cost of assets. The Tribunal held the subsidy was for project encouragement, not asset cost. Depreciation withdrawal was therefore unsustainable.
Despite allegations of sham sub-contracts, the project was shown to be completed, commissioned and operational. The Tribunal held that once the asset exists and is used, depreciation cannot be denied without concrete proof of bogus cost.
The ITAT held that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional bench. An appeal filed before the wrong Tribunal is liable to dismissal at the threshold.
The dispute concerned computation of capital gains on sale of shares affected by corporate actions. The Tribunal affirmed that detailed tranche-wise analysis and statutory indexation justified allowance of long-term capital loss.
The issue was whether a penalty could survive when the notice failed to specify the exact limb of section 271(1)(c). The ITAT held such ambiguity fatal, quashing the entire penalty as void.
The issue was whether the final order was passed within the statutory timeline after DRP directions. The Tribunal held that delay beyond one month under section 144C(13) renders the order void.
