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 : The High Court held that once a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes prior tax liabilities, reassessment cannot be initiated. Th...
Income Tax : 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...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal accepted that the deposits represented funds withdrawn earlier for house construction. Since the explanation was supp...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, ...
The Court held that self-assessment tax paid due to failure of an initial IDS declaration must be treated as payment under the revived Scheme, preventing double taxation of the same income.
The High Court ruled that tax authorities cannot ignore a binding ITAT Special Bench decision under Section 264 merely because the department has appealed it. Judicial discipline requires adherence unless the ruling is stayed or overturned.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held that reopening was barred as there was no failure to disclose material facts.
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 Delhi High Court held that sponsorship payments included consideration for worldwide use of event trademarks. The ruling confirms that such rights constitute royalty liable to withholding tax.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271D were invalid as they were imposed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).
Karnataka High Court held that revision petition u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act wrongly dismissed by holing that delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned since the revisional authority already condoned the delay.
The Court held that relief cannot be denied under Section 264 merely because a similar issue was earlier pending before the Supreme Court. The revision application was allowed as the issue was already covered by binding High Court rulings.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
