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...
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the recorded reasons for reopening were undated and failed to establish compliance with Section 148 requirements. The assessment was quashed as a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 cannot rest merely on information received from the Investigation Wing or Insight Portal. Since the Assessing Officer conducted no independent enquiry or verification, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Court held that although notices were sent to the address available in PAN and passport records, the reassessment order could not stand because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment, demand notices, penalties, and recovery proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing appeals was justified where the assessee had shifted to a new PAN and filed returns under it. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had fully explained the source of investment through bank records showing direct payment by her father. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as unsupported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s objection regarding approval under Section 151 required consideration. The matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after noting that the legal issue regarding notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is pending before the Supreme Court. A fresh adjudication on merits was directed.
Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal CIT instead of the prescribed higher authority under Section 151. The reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
