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...
Even though the assessee had no business operations, claims based on disclosed assets and records were held bona fide. The Tribunal ruled that such claims do not amount to inaccurate particulars or misreporting.
The case examined whether scrutiny selection without meeting CBDT conditions was valid. The ITAT held that failure to satisfy mandatory criteria invalidated the notice and entire assessment.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. It ruled that invoking extended time under Section 149 without satisfying this condition is illegal.
ITAT found that assessment and appeal orders were passed without proper opportunity due to communication issues. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the return. The claim was allowed subject to verification.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
Madras High Court held that capital profit on the sale of the Fixed Assets of the Company cannot be taken directly to the Reserves & Surplus in the Balance Sheet and the same has to be routed through the Profit & Loss Account to arrive at the correct book profits u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
The tribunal ruled that revisionary powers cannot be exercised without questioning the statutory approval under Section 153D. Absence of such examination renders Section 263 action invalid.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot sustain addition under Section 68 without issuing notice under Section 251(2). It also noted that the AO had already accepted evidences of investors.
