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 Tribunal found that additions for securities transactions may overlap with amounts already accepted by the tax authority. The matter was remitted to the AO for factual verification before sustaining any addition.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
The assessment relied on investigation reports without examining the alleged entry provider. The Tribunal held that cross-verification is essential before sustaining additions under section 68.
The Tribunal ruled that the first appellate authority lacks power to dismiss appeals solely for non-prosecution. Appeals must be decided on merits with reasoned findings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the mandatory faceless regime under Sections 144B and 151A. Non-compliance with the prescribed faceless procedure renders the entire reassessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that professional consultancy services rendered by a UAE resident are protected under Article 14 of the India–UAE DTAA. In absence of a fixed base or sufficient stay in India, exclusive taxing rights rest with the UAE.
The Tribunal ruled that CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by remanding a completed scrutiny assessment. The decision clarifies that remand powers apply only to Section 144 assessments, not regular ones.
The issue was whether reassessment can stand on an unsigned notice under Section 148. ITAT held that an unsigned notice confers no jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void ab initio.
The issue was whether bank credits already offered as income in an HUF’s return could again be taxed in the individual’s hands. ITAT held that double taxation is impermissible and directed the AO to verify HUF records before making any addition.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by relying on COVID-era extensions was invalid due to procedural lapses. As a result, the entire reassessment and addition were set aside.
