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...
Karnataka HC quashes reassessment and penalty orders after finding the Jurisdictional AO initiated Sec 148A proceedings outside the scope of the Faceless Regime (Sec 151A).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Lucknow has quashed an income tax assessment against Suraiya Begum, who had deposited Rs.13.08 lakh in her bank account during demonetization.
Karnataka High Court has ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, following a Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Surat held that ex-parte order of CIT(A) set aside and restored back for fresh adjudication subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000 on account of non-cooperation/ non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
Non-compliance due to overseas employment leads to ITAT remanding Rs. 1.9 crore tax matter for fresh adjudication, offering assessee a new hearing opportunity.
ITAT Rajkot sets aside CIT(A)’s ex parte penalty orders against Sunita Ashokabhai Sharma due to incorrect email service by tax department.
Bombay High Court held that department have acted contrary to the SOP under section 144B of the Income Tax Act violating the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, assessment order passed thereon is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment not tenable since the same needs to be allocated between joint beneficial owners. Thus, matter restore back to file of AO.
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice during the Covid-19 pandemic was deleted due to disruptions caused by lockdowns during outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation periods.
ITAT Chennai set aside the order and appeal restored back to the file of AO for denovo assessment, however, cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed for non-response on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
