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...
Aseem Sehgal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern assessment years 2015–16 to 2017–18 and arise from reassessment orders issued under Sections 147 and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The sole issue examined by the Tribunal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in framing reassessment under the pre-April 2021 provisions despite issuing the notice […]
The Tribunal held that once the assessee provided prima facie evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifts to the AO to make independent inquiries. Non-compliance renders additions invalid.
The Tribunal concluded that section 189 is only a machinery provision and cannot be invoked to assess alleged income arising long after a firm has ceased to exist. Since no evidence showed any business activity post-2012, the reopening for AY 2017-18 was invalid. The order quashing the reassessment also nullified the related addition and penalty.
ITAT held that reassessment notices under sections 147/148 were invalid as the reasons were vague and lacked tangible evidence. Reopening cannot be used merely to verify or scrutinize transactions without proper justification.
Difference between ready reckoner and stamp duty value was wrongly treated as misreported income. Tribunal ordered fresh adjudication, allowing assessee to present sale deeds, purchase deed, and bank statements.
Demat and broker records showed actual purchases of Rs. 1.24 crore and sales of Rs. 85 lakh, contradicting the AO’s addition of Rs. 2.11 crore. The Tribunal remitted the matter for detailed examination. Proper transaction-wise verification is essential before treating share activity as unexplained income.
ITAT held that cash deposits made during demonetization without proof of source justified addition under Section 69A. The ruling reinforces that dissolved entities must substantiate cash claims with evidence.
The Court reviewed bogus purchases of Rs. 4.65 crore, confirming the purchases as unverifiable but reduced the income estimation from 12.5% to 8%. The appeal was partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income already taxed under a proprietorship cannot be taxed again in a partnership, deleting the estimated 2% addition by CIT(A).
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as NFAC completed the process without issuing a mandatory notice under section 148A. It ruled that an assessment is void when the jurisdictional notice is issued by one authority but finalized by another.
