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 Hyderabad holds 12.5% profit estimation on ₹2.52 crore bank credits excessive; rejects commission agent claim due to lack o...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets asid...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) confirmed additions without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that fa...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when sufficient recorded cash receipts exist. Once books sup...
Income Tax : The High Court quashed assessment and penalty orders after finding notices were sent to an incorrect email address. It held that i...
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 was whether reassessment is valid when reasons for reopening are not placed on record. The Tribunal held that non-recording of reasons under Section 148(2) vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The reassessment was challenged for lacking approval from the correct authority under Section 151 after three years. The Tribunal held that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether reassessment after three years was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held it valid since the escaped income exceeded ₹50 lakh, attracting the extended reopening window.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the notice does not specify the exact charge. The Tribunal held that a vague notice vitiates the entire penalty proceedings, even where AMT liability exists.
The issue was whether an assessment is valid when notice under Section 143(2) is issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The Tribunal held such notice invalid and quashed the assessment as void ab initio.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
The case questioned whether a cooperative banks audited expenses could be disallowed on a percentage basis for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal ruled against arbitrary disallowance without defects in accounts.
The dispute centered on profit estimation after reopening for suppressed turnover. The Tribunal affirmed lower NP for animal sales, recognising industry norms and assessee history. The ruling underscores tailoring estimates to trade economics.
It was ruled that interest for late filing of the original return can be computed based on tax determined in search-related assessment. Timely filing after notice does not negate earlier delay.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 are void under the faceless regime. Since the assessments were invalid, all consequential penalty orders were also quashed.
