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 reassessment was framed ex-parte after notices were served on a wrong email address. ITAT Delhi ruled that effective hearing is a sine qua non under the law, and proceedings based on faulty service cannot stand. The case was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte citing non-prosecution. ITAT Delhi held that mere issuance of notices does not satisfy the requirement of effective hearing. The order was quashed and the matter sent back for fresh decision.
The Tribunal highlighted that non-receipt of assessment notice and lack of knowledge about tax procedures justified the 175-day delay. The appeal was restored to the AO, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunity to present his case.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that reassessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte without examining key issues on transfer, valuation, and cost, directing a fresh assessment with opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal ruled that ignoring a valid adjournment request vitiates ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The is that fair opportunity is mandatory before deciding tax disputes.
ITAT quashed a reassessment under section 147 as the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2), rendering the assessment legally invalid.
The Tribunal held that legal control under a JDA constitutes transfer for capital gains purposes. The assessee must provide acquisition cost details for recomputation.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
Tribunal ruled that examining purchases was permissible under limited scrutiny for sales mismatch. However, the 3% profit estimation was found arbitrary and sent back for fresh computation.
