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 ITAT Raipur held that estimated gross profit addition on unrecorded sales cannot be sustained when the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account under Section 145(3). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding the assessment contrary to settled legal principles.
ITAT ruled that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was unsustainable as it exceeded the limitation period prescribed by the Income-tax Act. The decision highlights that statutory timelines cannot be ignored without supporting evidence from the Revenue.
ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the very issue for which the assessment was reopened. The Tribunal deleted the Section 54 disallowance, holding that additions on unrelated issues are unsustainable once the original reopening ground fails.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that filing a return of income before completion of assessment is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal upheld denial of the deduction where the return was filed only after the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the entire unaccounted turnover from alleged on-money receipts cannot be treated as taxable income. It ruled that reasonable hidden expenditure must be considered while estimating profits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a taxpayer cannot avoid responsibility for earlier failures to respond merely because the final notice was sent to a different email address. However, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The ITAT Mumbai restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had not explained the source of investments in deposits and foreign currency purchases. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Delhi ITAT upheld the addition of deemed house property income after finding that the assessee failed to support his claims with evidence. The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the principle relating to assessments of non-existent entities without examining the factual circumstances of the firm’s conversion into a proprietorship. The matter was remanded for further inquiry.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a reassessment after finding that the Section 148 notice was based on an incorrect allegation of property sale. The Court held that reopening requires bona fide reasons supported by relevant material.
