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...
ITAT Mumbai held that condoning a delay in filing an appeal does not replace the right to present submissions on merits and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The assessee claimed the firm had dissolved and deposits belonged to a partner. The Tribunal held that absence of documentary proof justified treating bank deposits as unexplained income.
The tribunal examined whether an assessment under section 144 could survive without issuance of a notice under section 143(2). It held that non-issuance of the mandatory notice rendered the assessment void ab initio.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
A 284-day delay in filing appeals was condoned after accepting explanations including medical issues and disruptions. The key takeaway is that relief was granted but balanced by imposing costs to deter repeated non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte capital gains addition could not be sustained where the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity. Considering comparable treatment in a related case, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The assessee argued that revision proceedings were vitiated as they followed an audit objection. The ITAT rejected this plea, holding that audit-based information can validly trigger revision if conditions of section 263 are met.
ITAT held that disclosures in an election affidavit cannot, by themselves, justify reopening an assessment. The ruling reinforces that reassessment requires fresh tangible material and a live link to income escaping assessment.
ITAT restored the case to the Assessing Officer to examine jurisdictional defects, evidence, and applicability of section 115BBE. Technical dismissal by the appellate authority was set aside.
