Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
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 : 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 Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal C...
Income Tax : ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to it...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey pr...
Income Tax : The High Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and bank attachment after finding that the proceedings were complete...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the all...
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...
The issue involved dismissal of appeal due to delay and non-appearance. The tribunal condoned the delay citing medical reasons and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, imposing cost for non-compliance.
ITAT Hyderabad holds 12.5% profit estimation on ₹2.52 crore bank credits excessive; rejects commission agent claim due to lack of evidence but restricts income estimation to 4%, granting partial relief to the assessee.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets aside dismissal and directs AO to treat demonetisation cash deposits as business turnover (if normal) and estimate income u/s 44AD instead of Section 69A addition.
The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) confirmed additions without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that failure to consider explanations violates natural justice. Key takeaway: fair hearing is essential even in faceless assessments.
The tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when sufficient recorded cash receipts exist. Once books support availability, Section 68 additions fail.
The High Court quashed assessment and penalty orders after finding notices were sent to an incorrect email address. It held that improper service denied the taxpayer a fair hearing, violating natural justice. The case underscores the necessity of valid notice for lawful proceedings.
The case involved penalty for failure to respond to statutory notices during assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after both parties agreed on a lower amount to resolve the dispute.
The issue was estimation of commission income from alleged accommodation entries. The tribunal held that addition should be restricted to 0.5% on proven transactions, not inflated amounts.
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.
