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 accepted that the delay arose from an inadvertent error by the assessee’s prior tax consultant during e-filing. It ruled that such a bona fide mistake should not deprive the taxpayer of statutory appellate remedies. All issues were remanded for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity.
ITAT observed that NFAC neither followed the mandatory remand requirement under Section 251(1) nor complied with the speaking-order mandate of Section 250(6). Accordingly, the matter was remitted to be adjudicated strictly as per the amended law.
ITAT Ahmedabad remands the matter after persistent non-compliance, directing the assessee to prove the source of cash payments against credit-card expenses. A cost of ₹5,000 to PMNRF is imposed as a condition for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of corporate credit card payments. The decision emphasizes that taxpayers must be provided a final opportunity to substantiate deposits and income before any additions are finalized. This safeguards procedural fairness in tax proceedings.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued manually by the JAO violates the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that any Section 148 or 148A notice must originate only from the faceless system, making the JAO-issued notice invalid.
Tribunal held that an investment already assessed substantively in another person’s hands cannot again be taxed under Section 69. The case was remanded to avoid double taxation and ensure consistent adjudication.
Reassessment notice issued beyond statutory time limit under Section 148 was invalid; Tribunal quashed proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the AO relied on outdated investigation data without linking it to the assessee’s transactions. Since the information pertained to a period before the assessee even acquired the shares, the reopening lacked jurisdictional foundation. As a result, the entire addition for alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
ITAT Delhi remanded the case to verify whether imports made using a firm’s PAN were recorded in the company’s books. CIT(A) deletion was quashed as factual examination was needed.
The Tribunal held that reopening cannot stand when the show-cause notice cites one allegation (bogus ITC) but the final order relies on another (bogus purchases). The jurisdictional inconsistency invalidated the entire reassessment.
