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 ITAT Lucknow quashed the ex-parte appellate orders for AY 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17, ruling that the CIT(A) failed in its statutory duty to pass a speaking order on the appeal merits. The case is remitted for a de novo assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was premature when the related quantum appeal was still pending, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 211-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the delay was justified because the NFAC (CIT(A)) sent all crucial notices to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal restored the appeal for fresh hearing, ruling that the ex parte dismissal violated the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
Dismissing Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee’s ₹1.9 crore FDR was a renewal of an earlier deposit used as bank guarantee security and not a new unexplained investment under Section 69.
ITAT ruled that Thane Zilla Vidyasevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on Rs. 94.12 lakh interest income earned from deposits in a co-operative bank. Tribunal affirmed that a co-operative bank is classified as a co-operative society for this deduction.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order confirming addition of ₹15.01 lakh as unexplained cash deposits, directing the authority to give the assessee a fair opportunity to rebut the remand report and produce supporting evidence.
ITAT Agra held that ₹8.84 crore deposited and withdrawn from bank accounts used for ATM cash replenishment could not be treated as unexplained money of the employee. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts belonged to Punjab & Sind Bank.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
ITAT Dehradun held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was invalid as the AO failed to specify whether it was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, showing lack of application of mind.
