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 : Gujarat HC quashed a Section 264 revision order and remanded the matter after finding the petitioner's contentions were cursorily ...
Income Tax : ITAT held penalty under Section 271AAC(1) is unsustainable after deletion of Section 69A addition under Section 264 and set aside ...
Income Tax : Bengaluru ITAT quashed Section 271D penalties as time-barred, holding the six-month limitation under Section 275(1)(c) expired bef...
Income Tax : ITAT held that delayed filing of Form 67 is a procedural lapse and directed the AO to grant foreign tax credit claimed under Secti...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessee can contest a Section 143(1) adjustment in an appeal against the assessment order if the adjustment...
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural defect and cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-USA DTAA.
Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: statutory conditions must be strictly met.
ITAT Chennai set aside the appellate order and remanded issues on protective addition, Section 54F exemption, and TDS credit mismatch for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that once a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes prior tax liabilities, reassessment cannot be initiated. The notice under Section 148 was set aside. The ruling confirms that extinguished claims cannot be revived through reassessment.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse. It restored the matter to the AO to verify and allow Foreign Tax Credit if eligible.
The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
The Tribunal accepted that the deposits represented funds withdrawn earlier for house construction. Since the explanation was supported by loan records and confirmations, the addition was removed.
The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Delhi High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 67 cannot defeat a substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant FTC, observing that denial on technical grounds would amount to unjust enrichment.
The Court held that failure to comply with payment conditions under the 2020 Scheme automatically revived withdrawn revision petitions. This made the assessee eligible under the 2024 DTVSV Scheme.
