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...
Court upholds ITAT’s refusal to stay tax recovery, citing the petitioner’s prolonged inaction and failure to meet conditions. Key takeaway: procedural lapses undermined the stay request.
ITAT ruled that a scrutiny order cannot override a 143(1) intimation if the AO fails to examine pending 154 grievances. The case was remanded because the core adjustments were never adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on earlier-year assumptions cannot sustain without year-specific evidence. It found no material to show that current-year sales or debtors were bogus. The takeaway is that assessments must be supported by concrete evidence, not presumptions.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee’s own ledger reflected a creditor’s write-off, Section 41(1) was automatically triggered. The waiver in books = taxable cessation of liability.
The Court found that the notices sought to reopen issues that legally ceased to exist after approval of the Resolution Plan. It held that proceedings for any pre-plan period cannot continue under the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order taxing Rs. 10 lakh received from HUF, emphasizing verification of the gift and HUF status before determining taxability under section 56(2)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void because jurisdiction shifted between officers without a mandatory transfer order. It reaffirmed that proceedings without statutory jurisdiction are null and void.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand a limited scrutiny into full scrutiny without written approval from the Principal CIT. Additions under Sections 2(22)(e) and 69A were struck down, reaffirming that CBDT instructions are mandatory.
Madras High Court held that payment made for International Private Leased Circuits [IPLC] doesn’t constitute royalty within the expression provided under clause (iva) to Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act not sustained.
The Tribunal found that even a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice remains a valid return requiring a 143(2) notice. Because this mandatory notice was never issued, the reassessment order was declared illegal and set aside.
