Income Tax : Understand the statutory time limits for issuing income-tax notices and completing assessments under the Income-tax Act. The guide...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has remitted reassessment cases for fresh consideration after the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, leavi...
Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Jodhpur held that Section 37(1) business expenses cannot be disallowed without specific findings on genuineness. All appeals ...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held Section 68 cannot apply to sale proceeds of disclosed investments already recorded in books. Revenue's appeals wer...
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...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 29/2024-Central Excise rescinds six 2022 excise notifications in the public interest, effective immediately. Deta...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of excess tax paid.
ITAT Jodhpur held that Section 37(1) business expenses cannot be disallowed without specific findings on genuineness. All appeals were allowed and disallowances deleted.
ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)’s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after granting a fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft under Section 144C.
ITAT Delhi held Section 68 cannot apply to sale proceeds of disclosed investments already recorded in books. Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held Section 68 inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as income, avoiding double taxation.
ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer’s death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues as academic.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment based on incorrect factual assumptions and lack of verification was invalid and quashed the reopening.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the AO accepts the income declared in the return filed under Section 148.
Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estimated basis.
