Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
Income Tax : Section 154 permits rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in assessment orders, intimations, and TDS/TCS processing s...
Income Tax : A detailed overview of limitation periods prescribed under the Income-tax Act reveals how missing statutory deadlines can lead to ...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that Section 54 focuses on timely investment of capital gains, not rigid legal ownership milestones. The ...
Income Tax : KSCAA has made a Representation on Challenges in Income Tax Related to Rectification Proceedings, Order Giving Effect, Delay in P...
Income Tax : Even after due efforts taken by the Government to ensure compliance relating to filing of TDS returns by the deductors, the defaul...
Income Tax : Taxpayers who are not satisfied with the outcome of processing of their Income Tax Return by the Centralized Processing Centre, Be...
Income Tax : Department introduces new facility for online submission of rectification request in cases where processing was completed by CPC B...
Income Tax : High Court restrained tax recovery, holding the Section 154 order prima facie breached natural justice by withdrawing exemption wi...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 154 cannot be used where applicability of Section 167B requires factual examination, making the issue debat...
Income Tax : ITAT directed the AO to verify Form 26AS and the corresponding income before deciding the TDS credit claim instead of denying it o...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that the CPC could not withdraw an already allowed Section 10AA deduction through rectification without recording...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that deduction of TDS by the payer does not by itself establish that income has accrued to the recipient. It r...
Income Tax : Taxpayers who are not satisfied with the outcome of processing of their Income Tax Return by the Centralized Processing Centre, Be...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 02/2016 Section 154 of the Act mandates that rectification order shall be passed in writing by the Income Tax auth...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 01/2016 section 154 stipulates that where application for amendment is made by assessee/deductor/collector with a...
Income Tax : 225/148/2015-ITA-II Expeditious disposal of applications for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) dur...
Income Tax : INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2013 Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Judgment in case of Court On its Own Motion v. UOI and Ors. in W.P. (C) 2659/...
The Tribunal held that IGST refund on exports requires factual verification through ledger evidence. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for limited examination.
The Court found that intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154(3) were not communicated due to technical reasons. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after a revised audit report was filed.
Denial of the 15% rate through summary processing was held invalid. Eligibility under section 115BAB requires examination and hearing, not mechanical CPC adjustments.
The issue was whether an extraordinary delay caused by non-communication of intimation and a CPC error could be condoned. ITAT held the delay was unintentional, imposed costs, and remanded the case for adjudication on merits.
The issue was whether CPC could disallow Section 80P deduction while processing the return under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held that CPC lacked such power for AY 2019-20 as the enabling amendment came later.
It was ruled that refusal to condone delay, when justified, defeats substantive justice. The takeaway is that procedural delay should not block adjudication of intimation adjustments.
The Tribunal examined whether delayed filing of Form 67 can defeat a valid FTC claim. It ruled that Rule 128(9) is directory and FTC cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 11 could be denied solely due to wrong data punching. The court ruled that inadvertent human errors cannot defeat a lawful exemption
The issue was whether delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions paid before filing the return could be allowed. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Checkmate Services is declaratory and applies to earlier years, mandating disallowance.
The trust sought exemption by invoking later registration under section 12AA. The tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be granted retrospectively through section 154 when no assessment was pending on the registration date.
