Income Tax : An overview of Section 144 of the Indian Income Tax Act, which allows an Assessing Officer to make a best judgment assessment in c...
Income Tax : An analysis of Sections 263 and 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It details the conditions, scope, and judicial precedents for the...
Income Tax : Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within...
Corporate Law : Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated using data from a valid IDS declaration, holding that once accepted u...
Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT's rejection of a condonation delay application for late online Form 68 filing. The cou...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled against the revenue's additions of unaccounted capitation fees and cash loa...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi ruled a CIT(A) order invalid, stating it had no jurisdiction once a superior authority (PCIT) had already allowed a rev...
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated using data from a valid IDS declaration, holding that once accepted under the Income Disclosure Scheme, the Revenue cannot revisit or reassess the same income.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT’s rejection of a condonation delay application for late online Form 68 filing. The court adopted a justice-oriented view, directing a fresh, liberal reconsideration, as the taxpayer’s manual compliance was timely and the error was bona fide.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled against the revenue’s additions of unaccounted capitation fees and cash loan interest under Sections 69A and 69C against the Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust.
An overview of Section 144 of the Indian Income Tax Act, which allows an Assessing Officer to make a best judgment assessment in cases of non-compliance.
An analysis of Sections 263 and 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It details the conditions, scope, and judicial precedents for these revisional powers.
ITAT Delhi ruled a CIT(A) order invalid, stating it had no jurisdiction once a superior authority (PCIT) had already allowed a revision under Section 264.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that an AO cannot re-initiate assessment after a PCIT ‘sets aside’ an order without providing fresh directions, quashing a cash deposit addition.
Kerala High Court rules Section 264 revisional authority can only review existing orders, not issue directions to Assessing Authority; clarifies limitation period.
Gujarat High Court held that Revisional authority ought to have taken into consideration that AO has to pass best judgement assessment order without granting an opportunity of being heard. Thus, matter remanded back to AO for de novo consideration.
