Income Tax : The article explains remedies available after adverse tax orders under scrutiny and reassessment. The key takeaway is that choosin...
Income Tax : The Court clarified that mere pendency of information exchange requests under DTAA cannot justify continuing a Look Out Circular. ...
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 : The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. S...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually ex...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capi...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
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 : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
Supreme Court has held that issue of a legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for usurping jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and in the absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) cannot be framed and omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not a curable defect.
Balaji Enterprise Vs ACIT (ITAT Guwahati) The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 by the ACIT, Investigation, Delhi, on the basis of CBI search. When the question of jurisdiction came before the Hon’ble High Court, it was held that where the assessee shifts his residence etc., the AO of the place where the […]
Whether A.O. is right in dismissing the claim of the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer and they were constructed alongwith saleable flats?
Issue was as regards imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance by assessee with respect to statutory notices issued under section 142(1), when assessment was completed under section 143(3).
Self assessment – The assessee is required to make a self assessment and pay the tax on the basis of the returns furnished. Any tax paid by the assessee under self assessment is deemed to have been paid towards regular assessment. Regular assessment – On the basis of thereturn of income chargeable to tax furnished by the assessee an intimation shall be sent to the assessee informing him about the tax or interest payable or refundable to him.
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment order u/s 143(3) made by the AO in clear breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C is merely erroneous or is void ab initio?
ITO Vs Ajay Raj (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the notice u/s 143(2) served on wrong address is sustainable in law? ITAT states that, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the address at “85, Kumharon Wali Gali, Village Khampur, Delhi” which was not served on the assessee whereas […]
The Scrutiny Assessments under Income Tax Act 1961 are made u/s 143(3). For many years now many of the returns of the assesses are accepted as they are being filed by the assesses and intimation is sent u/s 143(1) and only fewer cases are selected for scrutiny assessment based upon some predetermined criterias. Therefore every assessee desires that his return should be accepted as it is filed u/s 143(1) and not subjected to scrutiny.
whether depreciation is mandatory to be granted while determining the Appellant’s entitlement to the deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, even though the Appellant had not claimed such depreciation?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment order passed without serving of the notice u/s 143(2) on correct address as mentioned in ITR is considered as Valid order?
