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 Bangalore set aside an ex-parte assessment, which included additions for low profit and demonetisation cash deposits, after the assessee cited the genuine reason of his son’s death and subsequent health issues for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the audited books, expenses, and cash sources after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of third party statement substantiated with tangible material is justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) with liberty to assessee to place supporting documents explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of a senior NRI, condoning the 1695-day delay because the assessment order was served on a corporate email that became inactive after his contract ended. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after issuing notice to the taxpayer’s correct personal email, highlighting the priority of natural justice over strict delay excuses.
The Delhi ITAT set aside an ex-parte assessment, remanding the Rs.13.74 lakh cash deposit case back to the AO for fresh verification. The ruling gives the taxpayer an opportunity to substantiate the deposits using a cash flow statement tracing the source to earlier large bank loan withdrawals.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a Rs.18.01 lakh penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1), holding that once the underlying assessment order is set aside, the consequential penalty order cannot survive. The Tribunal clarified that the AO may initiate fresh penalty proceedings only after framing a new assessment with additions.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, declaring the reassessment order and all related penalty notices for AY 2016-17 invalid because the initial proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional approval under Section 151A. The judgment underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in faceless assessments, reserving the right for the department to reinstate the case based on a future Supreme Court ruling.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
