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 : This guide explains the various assessments under the Income-tax Act, including summary assessment, scrutiny assessment, best judg...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
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 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 : ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Comm...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments quashing reassessment notices after noting that the Finance Act, 2026 introduced ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an ...
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...
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years is invalid if it is not sanctioned by the correct senior authority, quashing the proceedings.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside tax demand of ₹7.29 crore on a rural co-op society, citing its inability to explain a ₹4.63 crore cash deposit due to a negligent tax practitioner.
Calcutta High Court overturns Usha Martin Telematics tax order for 2019-20, citing a violation of natural justice after a personal hearing was denied.
Under Section 153C, the six-year limitation period for issuing a notice to a person other than the one searched begins from the date on which the documents or materials were received by AO, not from the date of the search or notice.
Revenue argued that since assessee was an “eligible assessee” under section 144C(15), AO rightly passed the order and the final order was valid within the time limit of section 153(4). On appeal.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s view that alleged accommodation loans were not supported by bank statements. Reopening and addition u/s 69A struck down; Revenue’s case dismissed.
ITAT Chennai held that the amount gifted by the brother cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act deleted to that extent. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The ITAT Mumbai has upheld a decision to restrict a bogus purchase addition to a 12.5% gross profit rate, citing a Bombay High Court precedent, in the case of DCIT vs. S. Rasiklal and Co.
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
