The ITAT considered the validity of an order u/s 143(1)(a) where ...

Assessee argued AO didn't give proper hearing for order u/s 143(1)(a). AO's authority u/s 143(1)(a) is limited.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 15, 2024

The ITAT considered the validity of an order u/s 143(1)(a) where the AO made adjustments based on the tax auditor's entry for penalty or fine. The AO communicated the proposed adjustment and provided reasons in the intimation order. The ITAT referenced the distinction between intimation and assessment per the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P ltd. The AO's authority is limited to adjustments based on the return of income, not debatable issues. In this case, the AO's actions were deemed appropriate as the adjustment was based on a prima facie disallowable amount categorized by the tax auditor. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The decision aligns with legal principles governing adjustments u/s 143(1)(a).

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT considered the validity of an order u/s 143(1)(a) where ...

Assessee argued AO didn't give proper hearing for order u/s 143(1)(a). AO's authority u/s 143(1)(a) is limited.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 15, 2024

You may also like:

The assessment u/s 143(1) was invalid as the procedure laid down u/s 144B was not followed. The case was selected for regular assessment, but the assessee was not given...

The preliminary assessment u/s 143(1) is limited to processing the return for arithmetical errors, incorrect expense claims, verifying audit reports, deductions, and...

The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The PCIT observed that the assessee, along with two co-owners, had purchased an immovable property...

The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. It held...

Validity of Intimation passed u/s 143(1) - Rectification of arithmetical error or prima facie incorrect claim - CPC is entitled to make adjustments as per 1st proviso of...

Intimation u/s 143(1) by changing the status of the assessee which consequently enhanced the tax liability of the assessee - from an AOP to a person taxable in terms of...

Addition in an intimation order u/s 143(1) - AO/CPC jurisdiction to make an adjustment in an Intimation Order u/s. 143(1) - No intimation given to the assessee of such...

Assessment proceedings examined assessee's claim relating to ICDS adjustment made in intimation u/s 143(1). AO issued notices seeking information, assessee provided...

The case involved the scope of limited scrutiny and the validity of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to...

Adjustment u/s 143(1) disallowing revenue expenditure claim u/s 11(1) was made without providing reasonable opportunity to assessee, violating second Proviso of Section...

Validity of adjustments made in an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, where there was a mismatch between the income tax return and the tax audit report filed...

The case pertains to the treatment of income received from an arbitral award in the assessment year. The AO passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) after the case was...

The assessee's request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate drawback was rejected due to non-fulfilment of basic requirements and time limitation. The assessee...

Exemption u/s 11 denied - intimation was issued u/s. 143(1) - The Central Processing Center has also taxed the entire gross receipt of the assessee without allowing any...

Rectification u/s 154 - The Assessee argued that the assessments u/s 143(1) and 143(3) merged, precluding further additions u/s 154, while the Revenue contended that...

Quick Updates: