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 issue was whether donation to a political party qualified for deduction under Section 80GGC. The tribunal held the claim was not genuine and upheld disallowance due to lack of credibility.
The issue was whether telecom and O&M service receipts are taxable as royalty/FTS in India. The tribunal held they are business profits and not taxable without a PE, granting relief.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition on alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and unverified pen drive data lack evidentiary value without corroboration or cross-examination, upholding natural justice.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by a non-jurisdictional AO is valid. The tribunal held that proceedings are void ab initio when jurisdiction had already been transferred under Section 127.
The issue was whether entire purchases can be disallowed as bogus under Section 69C. The tribunal held that when sales are accepted, only the profit element (15%) can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
ITAT held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval from the higher authority, not PCIT. Since approval was wrongly obtained, the entire reassessment was quashed.
ITAT allowed additional evidence filed by the legal heir and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The key takeaway is that justice requires giving opportunity where evidence was earlier unavailable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided affidavits, bank statements, and financials of contributors. The addition was deleted as the source stood satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal found that the AO relied only on general information without corroborative material. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion cannot replace proof in tax proceedings.
