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 reassessment invalid as approval was taken from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT under Section 151(ii). Jurisdictional non-compliance rendered the notice void.
ITAT Indore held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment proceedings where no advance tax obligation arises. The dismissal of appeal without examining merits was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Raipur held that Section 249(4)(b) applies only where advance tax was legally payable. In absence of taxable income and advance tax liability, dismissal of appeal was set aside and matter restored for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling on surviving period. Notices issued beyond the permissible limit were declared invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment beyond three years is invalid if approval is not obtained from the specified higher authority under Section 151(ii). The notice under Section 148 was declared void ab initio.
The Court held that failure to comply with payment conditions under the 2020 Scheme automatically revived withdrawn revision petitions. This made the assessee eligible under the 2024 DTVSV Scheme.
The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(A)’s findings while restricting addition to 12.5% of purchases. As key facts were not properly examined, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
ITAT deleted ₹14.74 lakh addition as identical source was accepted in spouse’s case. Alleged on-money payment lacked corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
ITAT held that mere signature or rubber-stamp approval under Section 151 is invalid if it does not reflect independent satisfaction. The reassessment and consequent additions were quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
