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 High Court held that the Commissioner did not properly apply the wide discretionary powers under section 264. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in light of the petitioner’s circumstances and submitted records.
ITAT ruled that reopening was bad in law as reasons cited property purchases, while additions related to cash credits—showing no live nexus. The case reaffirms that reassessment must be based on specific, relevant material.
The tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal, holding that the assessee was entitled to ₹2.36 crore deduction under Section 54F. Evidence showed only one residential property purchase, and farmhouse classification did not disqualify the claim.
ITAT Delhi held that AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation under Section 153C as the deemed search year started only when documents were received in 2021, nullifying the reassessment and related penalties.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices under section 148 issued to a deceased person are invalid, emphasizing that such notices cannot confer jurisdiction and proceedings are void ab initio.
Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
Tribunal held that additions made solely on ex-parte proceedings cannot stand when the taxpayer was unable to comply due to age-related limitations. The case was remanded for fresh assessment with a direction to provide proper opportunity.
ITAT held that a 147 reopening based on the incorrect assumption that no return was filed is invalid. Since the assessee proved the return was filed, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for a long delay, noting negligence and absence of due care. late appeals require concrete justification, not assumptions or later legal advice.
The Tribunal observed that additions forming the basis of the penalty had not yet attained finality before the first appellate authority. It therefore restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after completion of the quantum appeal.
