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 Tribunal held that although estimation of income was justified due to absence of books and non-filing of return, applying the 8% presumptive rate automatically was excessive. Considering the nature of the garment business, it reduced the estimated profit to 6.5% of bank credits.
The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A. The matter was sent back to the AO for reconsideration after examining the evidence.
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
The ITAT Ahmedabad cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication, holding that penalty based on the original order cannot survive once the assessment itself is reopened.
The ITAT Indore held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot survive where the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) after considering the taxpayer’s delayed submissions, as such compliance effectively condones earlier defaults.
ITAT held that the appellate authority wrongly dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) as there was no advance tax liability under Section 209. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void in law. A valid notice must be issued to the legal heirs under Section 159 before initiating reassessment.
The Tribunal found that the taxpayer had filed Form 68 seeking immunity from penalty but the request was rejected without due process. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the immunity claim in accordance with law.
