Income Tax : Every taxpayer has to furnish the details of his income to the Income-tax Department. These details are to be furnished by filing ...
Income Tax : Understanding assessment under the income tax act, 1961. Learn about the different types of assessments and their implications for...
Income Tax : Provisions for filing of updated return Section 139 of the Act is related to the provisions for filing of Income Tax Return by tax...
Income Tax : The case of the assessee was decided ex-parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which a demand of Rs. 2320480/- has been crea...
Income Tax : The officer is to make an assessment to the best of his judgment against a person who is in default as regards supplying informati...
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 Indore held that rejection of appeal by CIT(A) on the footing of non-payment of advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b) ...
Income Tax : Telangana High Court held that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 2...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune remands the case of Suhas Maruti Dhankude for re-adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and fail...
ITAT Hyderabad held that amendment to provisions of section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act is retrospective in nature and hence the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority on the date of agreement has to be taken for the purpose of full value of the consideration.
Explore the case of Alankit Imaginations Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi), where penalties were challenged. Learn why a ‘non-cooperative attitude’ alone cannot justify penalties.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of Evermore Polymer Systems Ltd., stating that penalties under Section 271B require a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs readjudication of ex-parte assessment orders passed without considering additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment of income under section 147 of the Income Tax Act other than income in respect of which AO has formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) deleted the additions/ disallowances on the basis of information/ evidences filed before him without providing any opportunity to AO is in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the same issue/ claim which was already decided and accepted during the course of regular assessment, without bringing any new material facts on records, is not valid as per law.
ITAT Delhi quashed the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as service of notice by way of affixture on the Assessee cannot be construed as sufficient Service of Notice.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as assessee has filed necessary evidence to explain nature and source for cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that as lower authority made ex-parte addition towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act matter restored to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication giving last opportunity to assessee to explain source of investment.
