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 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.
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.
