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 Jharkhand High Court has set aside a reassessment order against Anvari Khatun, citing the absence of a mandatory Section 148A notice. The case is remanded for fresh consideration with proper procedure.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition based on statement is liable to be quashed as the statement was recorded from the back of the assessee and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued by the Assessing Officer [AO], having no jurisdiction, is invalid. Accordingly, assessment order and consequent proceeding are also invalid.
ITAT Lucknow directs re-assessment for Ashok Kumar’s petrol pump business, citing denial of natural justice due to exclusive reliance on electronic notices and lack of fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee disclosed the source of credits. It is also held that assessee has also disclosed source of source and hence addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Raipur set aside ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) since the reason for non-compliance by the assessee before CIT(A)/NFAC was that the hearing notices have been sent in the wrong email id by the department. Accordingly, matter of accommodation entries remanded back to CIT(A).
ITAT Raipur held that in case of bogus/ sham transactions it is the responsibility of revenue authorities to investigate and decide that whether bogus transactions fall within the category of tax planning or tax evasion. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court held that Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme benefit is not admissible in case of assessments relating to search and seizure when the disputed tax exceeds INR 5 Crore. Therefore, writ petitions are dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that it is not obligatory on the part of the CIT(A) to set aside all the best judgment assessment orders passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act to the file of the AO. CIT(A) is obligated to address the grievance of validity of jurisdiction assumed by AO for initiating reassessment proceeding.
ITAT Delhi provides relief to Sanjay Store, ordering fresh assessment in ₹4.16 Cr demonetization case due to partner’s depression & father’s death. Penalties sent back.
