Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
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 : ITAT ruled that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was unsustainable as it exceeded the limitation period prescribed ...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 after 31.03.2022 was barred by limitation under the first p...
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...
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.
In the abovementioned case ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was availed by assessee before CIT (A) and revenue has no objection in remanding the matter.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay of 244 days in filing of an appeal caused due to genuine hardship faced by the assessee is condonable. Accordingly, delay condoned due to bona fide reason being demonstrated.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax unjustified since entre addition made by AO was challenged and there was no other income which is above threshold limit of being taxable.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
However, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued and therefore, AO completed the scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee for the AY 2017-18 as best judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and passed the assessment order.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal and passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) in absence of any response on behalf of the assessee untenable since CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.
ITAT Jaipur held that mere entering into the Development Agreement would not permit invocation of section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act. There is no positive act which indicates that the assessee has treated capital asset as stock-in-trade.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules no tax on cash deposits from relatives if affidavits provided. Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala vs ITO case highlights proper affidavit usage in tax assessments.
