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 ruled that when a 143(3) assessment merely adopts 143(1) figures without examining adjustments, taxpayers can still appeal the 143(1) intimation. Key takeaway: merger does not automatically block appeals.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
The Tribunal held that reopening notices and assessment orders under section 148 issued in the PAN of a deceased person are invalid. The ruling reinforces that reassessment proceedings require notices to be addressed to the correct taxpayer to maintain legal jurisdiction.
The assessee’s appeal succeeded in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was already declared in the return. The court held that initiating penalty proceedings on disclosed income exceeds the AO’s jurisdiction and is impermissible.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment under section 147 was invalid where the basis of information stemmed from a third-party search. It held that such cases must mandatorily proceed under section 153C. The key takeaway: search-linked data cannot justify a section 147 reopening.
The Tribunal held that substantial bank deposits without filing a return provided adequate basis to reopen under section 147. Notice-service objections failed due to section 292BB, and the quantum issue was remanded for verification. The ruling confirms that prima facie material is sufficient for reassessment.
ITAT held that criminal and departmental actions against former office bearers justified the 204-day delay. Assessment was remanded because additions were made without examining evidence.
ITAT upholds deletion of Section 69 addition after remand verification showed property purchases were recorded as business stock. Ruling highlights that properly accounted stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as unexplained investment.
The ITAT Delhi annulled a reassessment after finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceeding invalid in law.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
