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 : The ITAT held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer has already examined the iss...
Income Tax : ITAT quashed PCIT’s Section 263 order, holding AO’s treatment of survey income as business income valid and not erroneous or p...
Income Tax : Ahmedabad ITAT quashes reassessments based on ACB report, ruling the AO lacked independent "reason to believe" and only used borro...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune upholds PCIT's order u/s 263, setting aside an assessment for failure to verify ₹82.64 crore in advances for property...
Income Tax : National Chamber of Industries & Commerce, U.P has made a representation against Indiscriminate notices by the Income Tax Depa...
Income Tax : KSCAA has made a Representation on Challenges in Income Tax Related to Rectification Proceedings, Order Giving Effect, Delay in P...
Income Tax : One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Re...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted additions after finding the AO relied only on ACB information without independent inquiry or supporting evidence. ITA...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation....
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessmen...
PCIT challenged a 153C assessment under section 263. ITAT held that without annulling statutory 153D approval, revision is unsustainable, confirming 153D as a statutory safeguard.
The issue concerned an upward transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee fees charged to AEs. The Tribunal upheld the fee at 0.25% as arm’s length, citing prior ITAT precedents. The takeaway: valid comparable data and indemnification protect against such adjustments.
The ITAT held that the AO’s allowance of an 80G deduction without examining the background of M/s. Aadhar Foundation was erroneous. The decision reinforces that Explanation-2 to Section 263 requires verification when there is material indicating possible bogus donations.
ITAT Hyderabad held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial hence revision order quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that an assessment under section 143(3) is invalid if the section 143(2) notice does not comply with CBDT prescribed formats. The ruling nullifies both the assessment and related revisionary proceedings.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) passed beyond statutory time limits is invalid. The ruling reinforces that the outer limit under section 153 cannot be extended, emphasizing strict compliance with limitation provisions.
ITAT Kolkata condoned an extraordinary delay in filing appeals, emphasizing that genuine and unavoidable reasons justify late filing, allowing the appeals to proceed for adjudication.
ITAT Pune held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate key legal grounds, including wrong AO jurisdiction and missing Document Identification Number. Entire order under Section 144 r.w.s. 263 was set aside for reconsideration with proper hearing.
ITAT Chennai quashed reassessment under Section 147, ruling that reopening based on a change of opinion without new material is invalid.
The Hyderabad tribunal clarified that section 144C provisions are procedural and cannot extend the statutory limitation under section 153. The AO passed the final assessment order after the permissible period, leading to quashing. The ruling strengthens the principle that statutory deadlines are paramount in tax proceedings.
