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...
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.
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.
