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 assessment was quashed because the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction must exist at the notice stage itself.
The Court set aside a rectification rejection passed before the scheduled hearing date, holding that Section 154(3) requires a prior opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void as approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is that failure to comply with section 151(ii) invalidates the entire reassessment.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued after three years was time-barred under section 149. Since the ₹50 lakh exception did not apply, the reassessment was invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that a withholding tax certificate cannot stand once the ITAT sets aside the finding of a dependent agent PE. Since the Revenue relied solely on quashed assessment orders, the 8.75% TDS was invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that expiry of 120 days under Section 132B does not trigger automatic release of seized assets. The only consequence of delay is interest liability, reaffirming that AO’s satisfaction is essential.
The Tribunal held that approval by an incompetent authority under Section 151(ii) invalidates a reassessment issued after three years. The notice and consequential order were declared void for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT ruled that enhancement of income under section 251 without giving the assessee a proper hearing is invalid. The appeals were remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that non-filing of return within the due date disentitled the assessee from deduction under section 80P due to section 80AC. Consequently, lower profit claims based on accounts were rejected.
