Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the complexities of tax compliance for freelancers and gig workers, from understanding income sources to navigating legal...
Income Tax : Understand the penalty for failure to furnish income tax return. Learn about the increased late fees and provisions under Section ...
Income Tax : I have covered only relevant compliances/information useful for Small Manufacturer, Traders only through this article which includ...
Income Tax : While filing your income tax return within due date is important, it does not mean that if for any reason you missed the dead line...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2017 proposes to levy fees of Rs.5,000 in case where return is furnished after the due date but on or before 31S...
Income Tax : The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether delay in filing appeal without strong documentary proof should be condoned. The ITAT held that when sufficie...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is un...
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired limitation cannot be revived through later amendments, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeal without strong documentary proof should be condoned. The ITAT held that when sufficient cause exists, delay must be liberally condoned to ensure justice and hearing on merits.
The Tribunal ruled that admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer breaches Rule 46A. The matter was sent back to the AO for reconsideration after examining the evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment proceedings. Since the final assessment was not completed ex-parte, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
The Tribunal found that additions under section 69A were made without examining evidence due to non-compliance. The matter was remanded to allow verification of claimed trading and agricultural receipts.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment and penalty orders where the assessee could not file returns due to inactive email, granting a fresh opportunity to submit documents and pleadings.
Karnataka High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings and related notices for AY 2015-16, holding that actions initiated beyond Section 151A are legally void.
