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 issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
The assessing officer estimated commission income by assuming investments were accommodation entries. The tribunal confirmed that additions based on assumptions, without concrete evidence, are legally unsustainable.
The issue was whether declared business income can be overlooked while estimating profits after rejecting books. The Tribunal held that ignoring returned income leads to double taxation and directed its set-off.
The issue was reopening beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as there was no finding of failure to disclose material facts, a mandatory precondition under the proviso to section 147.
The Tribunal ruled that additions for alleged cash payments cannot survive when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. Absence of corroboration and denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The trust sought exemption by invoking later registration under section 12AA. The tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be granted retrospectively through section 154 when no assessment was pending on the registration date.
The appellate authority had mechanically rejected additional evidence without reasons, resulting in denial of fair opportunity. The tribunal restored the quantum issue for reconsideration and quashed the consequential penalty.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when seized search material exists. The correct and exclusive route is section 153C, making the reopening jurisdictionally invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing only three hearing notices does not satisfy principles of natural justice. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that once sale receipts are accepted as consideration from immovable property, they cannot be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
