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 examined whether an assessment under section 144 could survive without issuance of a notice under section 143(2). It held that non-issuance of the mandatory notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
A 284-day delay in filing appeals was condoned after accepting explanations including medical issues and disruptions. The key takeaway is that relief was granted but balanced by imposing costs to deter repeated non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte capital gains addition could not be sustained where the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity. Considering comparable treatment in a related case, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The assessee argued that revision proceedings were vitiated as they followed an audit objection. The ITAT rejected this plea, holding that audit-based information can validly trigger revision if conditions of section 263 are met.
ITAT held that disclosures in an election affidavit cannot, by themselves, justify reopening an assessment. The ruling reinforces that reassessment requires fresh tangible material and a live link to income escaping assessment.
ITAT restored the case to the Assessing Officer to examine jurisdictional defects, evidence, and applicability of section 115BBE. Technical dismissal by the appellate authority was set aside.
Bombay High Court held that this court order doesn’t contain any ‘finding’ or ‘direction’ as contemplated by provisions of section 153(6) and consequently no order of assessment could be passed in view of bar of limitation in section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was dismissed without proper hearing or examination of the assessee’s case.
