Income Tax : Section 145(3) allows rejection of books if accounts are unreliable or standards are not followed. The key takeaway is that specif...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income unless books of account are formally rejected under s...
Income Tax : Learn about various types of income tax assessments under Sections 143, 144, and 147, their procedures, time limits, and taxpayer ...
Income Tax : Summary of statutory deadlines for issuing income tax notices (Sec 143, 147) and completing assessments, reassessments, and appeal...
Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
Income Tax : Starting October 1, 2024, Commissioners (Appeals) will gain new powers to set aside and refer best judgment assessments back to As...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supp...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had fully explained the source of investment through bank records showing direct payment by her...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the assessee’s objection regarding approval under Section 151 required consideration. The matter was sent...
Income Tax : The Nagpur ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after noting that the legal issue regarding notices issued by the Jurisdictional...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Orissa High Court held that assessment order set aside as proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated without serving of statutory notice. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO to serve notice u/s. 148 as not hit by limitation u/s. 149.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not participate in proceedings due to lack of knowledge. It remanded the matter to ensure proper hearing and adjudication on merits.
Despite delay and repeated non-appearance, the Tribunal remanded the matter with a ₹10,000 cost. The ruling balances taxpayer conduct with the need for fair adjudication.
The issue was whether Section 153C could apply when the assessees own premises were searched. The tribunal held that such a person is a searched person, making Section 153A applicable instead. Consequently, assessments under Section 153C were quashed for multiple years.
The tribunal addressed whether delay in filing appeals due to procedural difficulties justified condonation. It held that genuine hardship caused by PAN mismatch and filing issues constituted sufficient cause, allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether reassessment can survive when no addition is made on the stated reasons for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reassessment is invalid, and the AO cannot make unrelated additions.
ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emphasizes that issuance of notice is mandatory and absence of it makes the assessment void.
The Tribunal upheld dismissal of appeal for non-payment of tax under Section 249(4)(b). However, it remanded the case after finding that the addition based on Form 26AS may be incorrect.
