Professional IT Notice Reply for Teynampet businesses near Anna Salai (Mount Road) — and a zero-penalty filing record
Handling IT Notice Reply for Teynampet and Nungambakkam clients — fixed fee, deterministic turnaround and archived working papers. Call 9566-068-468.
Section 263 empowers the Pr.CIT/CIT to revise an order passed by the AO that is 'erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue'. Both conditions must be satisfied. The order can be passed within 2 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the CIT takes a different view on the same facts where the AO's view is a possible view.
Fixed fees · Zero hidden charges · Call 9566-068-468 for a custom quote.
Swipe to see all plans
Prices exclude GST. For enterprise pricing, call 9566-068-468.
Expert IT Notice Reply in Teynampet — qualified professionals, 15+ years experience, zero-penalty track record.
Every TDS / AIS mismatch defence is supported by line-by-line reconciliation of Form 26AS, AIS, TIS and the filed return — bank interest, dividend, mutual fund redemption, salary TDS, SFT cash deposits — each item explained or contested with documentary evidence.
Personal hearing by video conference under Section 144B(6)(viii) is requested as a matter of right after every draft assessment order. Senior consultant attends; submissions are documented and uploaded to the e-Proceedings module — no addition without natural justice.
Every Section 148 notice is tested against the new regime — 3-year normal limit, 10-year extended limit only where escaped income represented in asset / expenditure / entry exceeds ₹50 lakh, sanction of specified authority under Section 151 — flaws are challenged by writ petition where appropriate.
Section 270A penalty levied at 200% (misreporting) is challenged for reclassification to 50% (under-reporting) where the addition is on a debatable issue — saving 75% of penalty. Section 270AA immunity in Form 68 is filed where conditions are satisfied.
Section 246A appeal in Form 35 is filed within 30 days of demand notice and is routed through the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Rule 46A additional-evidence petitions are drafted with reasons; remand reports are responded to point by point.
Stay of demand pending CIT(A) appeal is sought from the AO under Section 220(6) per CBDT OM dated 31-Jul-2017 — 20% deposit standard, lower deposit argued in high-pitched assessments, jurisdictional High Court covered issues, and genuine financial hardship cases.
Every IT Notice Reply engagement delivers measurable, guaranteed outcomes — expert professionals, on time, every time.
Why this matters here — Across Teynampet, the cluster of corporate offices, hospitality, healthcare businesses that defines Teynampet's commercial fabric. Practitioners note that served by short connections to Nungambakkam and Alwarpet and onward to central Chennai.
Share documents via WhatsApp to 9566-068-468. No office visit required for Teynampet clients.
Miss any of these and the next consequence kicks in automatically.
Deadlines in this neighbourhood — Across Teynampet, the business activity radiating outward from Anna Salai (Mount Road) and nearby commercial pockets.
Deadline pressure points we see in Teynampet: Closer to Teynampet, for Teynampet businesses balancing growth ambitions with tight statutory compliance.
Show-cause notice provided to assessee under Section 148A(b) along with the information suggesting escapement of income, seeking the assessee's reply before the officer passes the Section 148A(d) order
Speaking order recording satisfaction that it is or is not a fit case to issue a Section 148 notice; precedes the Section 148 reassessment notice and is the document on which validity of subsequent proceedings rests
Notice requiring the assessee to furnish a return of income for the relevant assessment year within the period specified in the notice, where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe income has escaped assessment
Communication of proposed amendment to an order or intimation where mistake apparent from record is noticed; the assessee is required to be heard before any amendment which has the effect of enhancing assessment or reducing refund is made
Intimation proposing adjustment of refund determined as due against outstanding demand, mandated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in Court On Its Own Motion v UoI; requires speaking order before adjustment
Notice specifying the sum payable in consequence of any order under the Act — tax, interest, penalty, fine; the operative document for recovery; payable within thirty days under Section 220(1)
Electronic form for filing first appeal under Section 246A against assessment, reassessment, rectification or penalty orders; carries grounds of appeal, statement of facts, and proof of fee payment
Memorandum of appeal to ITAT under Section 253 against orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner under Section 263 or 264, or penalty orders by Principal Commissioner; filed in triplicate with certified order copy
Every claim on this page can be traced back to a section or rule below.
Sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Income-tax Act 1961 empowers the Assessing Officer to call for a return where none has been furnished, to require production of accounts and documents, and to call for any information on points or matters considered necessary for assessment. It is to be noted that the proviso to clause (ii) bars the officer from calling for accounts relating to a period more than three years prior to the previous year without prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of ten thousand rupees per default and prosecution under Section 276D.
View sourceSub-section (1) of Section 143 prescribes the summary processing of a return furnished under Section 139 or in response to a notice under Section 142(1). The system computes the total income or loss after making adjustments enumerated in clauses (i) to (vi) — arithmetical errors, incorrect claims apparent from the return information, disallowance of loss claimed where the return is belated, disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account, disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 10AA or any provision of Chapter VI-A heading 'C' where the return is furnished beyond the due date, and addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16 not included in the return. The proviso requires an intimation of any proposed adjustment to be communicated and a response window of thirty days afforded before the adjustment is given effect.
View sourceSub-section (2) of Section 143 enables the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, where a return has been furnished under Section 139 or in response to a notice under Section 142(1), to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to attend the office or produce evidence in support of the return. The proviso prescribes an outer limit of three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished, beyond which no Section 143(2) notice may be issued. Selection for scrutiny follows the Central Action Plan and the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection criteria notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for the relevant assessment year.
View sourceSection 148 as substituted prescribes that before making the assessment or reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish a return of income within the period specified in the notice, not being less than three months. The proviso requires that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority. The order under Section 148A(d) must precede issue of the Section 148 notice.
View sourceSection 148A, inserted by the Finance Act 2021 and modified by the Finance Act 2022, prescribes a four-stage pre-notice inquiry — clause (a) the officer may conduct any inquiry with prior approval; clause (b) the officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard by serving a show-cause notice of not less than seven days and not more than thirty days; clause (c) the officer shall consider the reply furnished by the assessee; clause (d) the officer shall pass an order with the approval of the specified authority deciding whether or not it is a fit case to issue a Section 148 notice. It is to be noted that clause (d) order is the document on which the validity of the subsequent Section 148 notice rises or falls.
View sourceSection 154 enables an income-tax authority to amend any order passed by it, or any intimation or deemed intimation under Section 143(1), or any intimation under Section 200A(1) or Section 206CB(1), with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. Sub-section (1A) extends the power to amendments consequent to an appellate order. Sub-section (7) imposes a four-year limitation reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. Sub-section (8) requires a six-month disposal timeline where the assessee himself moves an application. It is to be noted that the mistake must be apparent on the face of the record and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning or investigation.
View sourceEvery Teynampet engagement we open begins with the basics: PIN 600018, the Mylapore Division, and the coordinates 13.0431, 80.2451 that anchor the locality. Statutory correspondence for Teynampet businesses routes through the Mylapore Division, so we align every IT Notice Reply engagement to that jurisdiction from the start. We keep a cycle-by-cycle record of how the Mylapore Division of the Chennai South handles Teynampet filings and approvals. Businesses registered in Teynampet share the Chennai South jurisdiction, and their statutory matters route through the same Mylapore Division each time.
Working in Teynampet brings a logistical edge: proximity to Teynampet Junction and the Teynampet Junction corridor keeps physical document handling fast. Freight and foot traffic from the Teynampet Junction hub pull steady daily commerce through Teynampet, so there is rarely a quiet filing month in this corporate hospitality and healthcare pocket. Document pickup near Teynampet Junction is a same-hour errand for our Teynampet engagements rather than the half-day a typical Chennai client expects. The businesses clustered around Teynampet Junction in Teynampet drive the bulk of the IT Notice Reply workload we see each cycle.
Sector concentration matters: when Teynampet leans toward insurance, the IT Notice Reply risks cluster around the same few line items each cycle. The insurance firms we serve in Teynampet value a IT Notice Reply partner who already understands their sector's compliance rhythm. Because Teynampet hosts a cluster of insurance businesses, we benchmark each new IT Notice Reply engagement against patterns we already track for the locality. A insurance operator in Teynampet gets a IT Notice Reply workflow shaped by sector norms, not a one-size-fits-all template.
The Teynampet IT Notice Reply workflow is documented end-to-end: WhatsApp document intake, a working file, qualified review, and a filed acknowledgement back to you. We keep a repeatable IT Notice Reply checklist for Teynampet so nothing in the cycle is improvised or missed. A Teynampet client sees the same IT Notice Reply cadence each cycle: intake, reconciliation, review, filing, acknowledgement. From the first IT Notice Reply cycle, a Teynampet engagement is set up to be audit-ready rather than reconstructed under pressure later.
Coverage from Teynampet naturally extends to Mylapore, so group entities across the area share one IT Notice Reply workflow. From the same Teynampet team we also serve Mylapore and other nearby localities without re-onboarding clients. Businesses straddling Teynampet and Mylapore get a single IT Notice Reply point of contact rather than two. A client relocating between Teynampet and Mylapore keeps the same IT Notice Reply file and the same team.
Common patterns in the Mylapore Division give Teynampet businesses an early-warning map we use to pre-empt IT Notice Reply issues. Sector signals in Teynampet — seasonal retail swings and peak-period volumes — shape how we schedule IT Notice Reply work. Over several cycles in Teynampet, the recurring IT Notice Reply issues cluster around a predictable short list we screen for early. The longer we serve Teynampet, the more precisely we predict where a IT Notice Reply file needs attention.
Incorporating in Teynampet comes with jurisdiction, registration and IT Notice Reply steps that we sequence so nothing stalls the launch. First-time IT Notice Reply for a Teynampet business is where getting the basics right saves years of cleanup later. Relocating a registered office into Teynampet (PIN 600018) changes the assessing division, and we handle that IT Notice Reply transition cleanly. For a new business incorporating in Teynampet or shifting its principal place of business here, IT Notice Reply setup is one of the first things to get right.
Yes — by writ before the High Court on grounds of mala fide or non-application of mind. The Supreme Court has held that the AO must record valid reasons demonstrating complexity, and the assessee must be heard before the direction. Sahara India is the leading precedent.
Section 119(2)(b) read with CBDT Circular 9 of 2015 allows condonation of delay in filing returns claiming refund or carry-forward of loss. The Pr.CIT/CCIT/CBDT — depending on quantum — exercises this discretion on hardship grounds with documentary support.
Section 133A survey is conducted at a place of business during business hours; the officer can inspect books and impound them but cannot seize money or jewellery. Section 132 search is at any place and any time, and seizure of money and assets is permitted.
Yes — Section 133A statements do not have the evidentiary weight of Section 132(4) sworn statements and can be retracted with supporting documentary material showing that the original admission was made under pressure or was factually incorrect.
Section 132(4) statements are recorded on oath during a search and have full evidentiary value under the Evidence Act. Retraction is possible but requires very strong supporting material, since the courts treat these statements as deliberate and considered admissions.
Section 132B(1)(i) proviso allows the assessee to apply for release of seized cash and assets to the extent of existing tax liability — typically self-assessment tax for the year of search. The Pr.CIT must dispose of the application within prescribed time.
What Teynampet clients want to know before signing: Closer to Teynampet, around the Anna Salai (Mount Road) catchment of Teynampet.
Reading this guide locally — Across Teynampet, around the Anna Salai (Mount Road) catchment of Teynampet.
Section 282 read with Rule 127 governs the mode and place of service of any notice under the Act. Electronic service through the e-filing portal, the registered email, and (where applicable) the mobile number registered with the department is the primary mode under the Faceless framework, with physical service preserved as a backup. The Pradeep Goyal Supreme Court ruling on the Document Identification Number mandate, codified through CBDT Circular 19/2019, requires every notice and order to carry a DIN that can be verified on the e-filing portal — a notice without a verifiable DIN is treated as invalid except in narrow exceptional circumstances. The Anshul Jain Delhi HC ruling and the Tata Communications Bombay HC ruling have applied the DIN requirement strictly, with the assessee entitled to seek verification before responding substantively. Service through the e-Proceedings module triggers the compliance window from the date of dispatch, not the date of access by the assessee, making prompt portal review critical.
Any reply strategy begins with a structured reading of the notice itself. The first identification is the section under which the notice has been issued, since this determines the procedural framework and the compliance window. The second is the assessment year to which the notice relates, since the limitation provisions under Section 149, Section 153, and Section 154 are computed by reference to assessment year boundaries. The third is the Document Identification Number, which must be verified through the e-filing portal. The fourth is the response deadline stated on the face of the notice. The fifth is the specific information sought or adjustment proposed, which determines the substantive content of the reply. The sixth is the jurisdiction — faceless under Section 144B versus territorial under Section 124 — since this affects appellate routing under Section 246A and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 before the appropriate High Court.
An income tax notice is a formal communication issued by the income tax authorities under the Income-tax Act 1961 conveying an action, requirement, or finding affecting the recipient's tax position. The Act provides for several distinct categories of notice — intimation under Section 143(1) after return processing, inquiry under Section 142(1) seeking information, scrutiny under Section 143(2) opening an assessment, reassessment under Section 148 read with the post-April-2021 Section 148A framework, rectification under Section 154, adjustment under Section 245, demand under Section 156, and recovery under Section 220 and Section 222. The Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribes the form, content, and procedural requirements for each notice through Rules under Section 295 and contemporaneous Circulars. The Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 144B routes most communications through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, with notices served electronically through the e-filing portal and the registered email under Rule 127. Each notice carries distinct compliance windows, substantive content requirements, and consequence patterns, making accurate identification of the section under which the notice has been issued the first analytical step in any reply strategy.
The post-2021 framework requires the Assessing Officer to have information suggesting income escaping assessment before invoking the Section 148A procedure. Explanation 1 to Section 148 lists the categories of information including risk-management strategy notified by the Board, audit objections, information received under Section 90 or Section 90A, communication from any law-enforcement agency, and information received under a scheme notified under Section 135A. The Section 135A faceless inquiry scheme provides for an Inquiry and Verification Centre to collect information that the Assessing Officer can rely on. The framework moves from the subjective reason-to-believe standard of the pre-2021 regime to an objective information-based standard, with the assessee's response strategy focused on rebutting the underlying information rather than challenging subjective formation of belief.
The Section 148A(b) response is the critical procedural opportunity for the assessee to avoid the subsequent Section 148 reassessment. The response is drafted addressing the information cited in the show-cause notice and demonstrating either that the information does not suggest income escaping assessment or that the assessee has a documentary answer to the underlying transaction. The covering letter identifies the notice, the assessment year, and the response deadline. The substantive content engages with each piece of information cited, providing documentary substantiation. Where the information is patently incorrect, this is articulated transparently with supporting evidence (FIRC for foreign remittances, bank statement classification for deposits, GST documentation for cross-tax-base entries). The response is uploaded through the e-Proceedings portal with the acknowledgement number retained. The substantive engagement at the Section 148A(b) stage substantially improves the prospects of a favourable Section 148A(d) order.
Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing Officer to pass an order, with the approval of the specified authority under Section 151, deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issue of a Section 148 notice. The order must be a speaking order engaging with each material submission made by the assessee in the Section 148A(b) response, with the Kranti Associates Supreme Court ruling on reasoned decision-making applying directly. Where the Section 148A(d) order is adverse but the assessee considers that the order suffers from jurisdictional defects — non-engagement with material submissions, sanction not obtained from the appropriate authority under Section 151, limitation expired under Section 149 — the writ remedy under Article 226 before the Madras High Court is available. The writ route at the Section 148A(d) stage is increasingly common since the underlying defects can be examined without the prejudice of subsequent reassessment proceedings.
Section 149 as substituted by the Finance Act 2021 prescribes the limitation periods for issuance of Section 148 reassessment notices. The general limitation under Section 149(1)(a) is three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) is ten years from the end of the relevant assessment year where the income escaping assessment, represented in the form of an asset or expenditure or entry, is or is likely to be fifty lakh rupees or more. The Section 149(1A) framework prescribed for asset-based escapement requires the existence of the asset to be evidenced through specified means. The structure substantially limits the routine reassessment window compared to the pre-2021 framework, with the ten-year extension reserved for high-value cases. The limitation begins from the end of the assessment year, making the working of the cut-off date analytically straightforward.
The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 extended limitation periods for various income-tax actions during the pandemic period, with the interaction between TOLA and the substituted Section 149 producing significant jurisprudence. The Rajeev Bansal Supreme Court ruling (2024) addressed the question of which limitation period applies to notices issued in the transition window — TOLA-extended pre-2021 limitation or the substituted post-2021 limitation. The court harmonised the two regimes with detailed working for each combination of original assessment year and issue date. The framework requires assessees with reassessment notices in the transition or post-transition window to undertake a precise limitation working drawing on the TOLA extension dates, the substituted Section 149 periods, and the Rajeev Bansal ruling. Where the working shows limitation expiry, the writ remedy under Article 226 is the most effective route.
Section 151 prescribes the sanction requirement for the issuance of a Section 148 notice. Sub-section (1) requires the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director where three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Sub-section (2) requires the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General where more than three years have elapsed. The sanction is substantive, not formal, with the sanctioning authority required to apply mind to the underlying material as held in the Pradeep Goyal Supreme Court ruling on the DIN requirement and in the German Remedies Bombay HC ruling on the mechanical sanction. Where the sanction is mechanical or absent, the resulting notice is unsustainable. The strategic working in any reassessment response includes a check on the sanction layer.
Computing the assessment cut-off in practice involves a structured working — first, the original limitation under the applicable sub-section of Section 153; second, any extension under TOLA for pandemic-period assessments; third, identification of each exclusion period under Explanation 1 with documentary substantiation; fourth, addition of the excluded days to derive the final limitation date; fifth, comparison against the actual date of the assessment order to confirm whether the assessment is within or beyond the limitation. Where the working shows limitation overshoot, the assessment order is liable to be set aside on the limitation ground alone, regardless of the substantive merits of the position. The limitation challenge is typically raised in the Section 246A appeal as the first ground, with the appellate authority bound to consider it before reaching the substantive issues.
Section 153 prescribes the limitation for completion of assessments under the Act. Sub-section (1) provides the limitation for assessments under Sections 143 and 144, which after successive amendments now stands at twelve months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable (with the period extended by TOLA in respect of pandemic-period assessments). Sub-section (2) provides the limitation for reassessments under Section 147, which is twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the Section 148 notice is served. Sub-section (3) provides the limitation for fresh assessments pursuant to appellate orders, which is twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the appellate order is received. The limitation provisions are mandatory, with assessments framed beyond the limitation being void ab initio.
Sections 153A and 153C provide a special assessment framework for search cases under Section 132 and requisition cases under Section 132A. Section 153A authorises the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years preceding the year of search, with the limitation under Section 153B prescribing twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the search was conducted. Section 153C extends the framework to persons other than the searched person where seized material relates to such other person. The Finance Act 2023 has substantially recast the framework with the new Sections 148 read with Section 149 applying to search cases post-2023, with the assessment-block concept retained. The Manish Maheshwari Supreme Court ruling and the CIT v Calcutta Knitwears ruling have applied the procedural conditions strictly in pre-amendment cases.
What Teynampet clients usually ask next: Closer to Teynampet, for Teynampet businesses balancing growth ambitions with tight statutory compliance.
National Faceless Assessment Centre is the apex authority constituted under the faceless assessment scheme that allocates cases to assessment units, verification units, technical units and review units across India, and serves as the single point of contact with the assessee through the e-portal.
Faceless penalty scheme is the dynamic-jurisdiction framework for imposition of penalties — Section 270A, Section 271AAC, Section 271AAD, Section 272A and others — through the National Faceless Penalty Centre. The penalty unit issues the show-cause; the review unit examines proposed orders before they are finalised.
Show-cause notice under Section 274 is the procedural prerequisite for imposition of any penalty under Chapter XXI. The notice must specify the limb under which penalty is proposed — under-reporting or misreporting under Section 270A, for instance — to give the assessee a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Under-reporting of income is defined in Section 270A(2) through six situations — income assessed greater than income returned, income above maximum amount not chargeable to tax where no return is filed, income reassessed greater than income previously assessed, loss claimed but lower loss assessed, and so on. Penalty at fifty per cent of tax payable on under-reported income.
Misreporting of income is defined in Section 270A(9) through six situations — misrepresentation or suppression of facts, failure to record investments in books, claim of expenditure not substantiated, recording of false entry, failure to record receipts bearing on total income, failure to report international transactions. Penalty at two hundred per cent of tax payable.
Immunity application under Section 270AA is the application in Form 68 seeking immunity from Section 270A penalty and Section 276C / 276CC prosecution, conditional on payment of tax and interest per order and non-filing of appeal. To be filed within one month of end of month of receipt of order; not available in misreporting cases.
Section 271AAC penalty is the ten per cent penalty on tax payable under Section 115BBE for income that is referred to in Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D — unexplained credits, unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure. Combined incidence including Section 115BBE base reaches seventy-eight per cent.
Section 115BBE special tax rate is the sixty per cent rate (plus twenty-five per cent surcharge and four per cent cess) applicable to income referred to in Sections 68 to 69D. Sub-section (2) bars set-off of any loss or deduction against such income. The provision targets unexplained credits, investments and expenditure.
Section 68 unexplained cash credit is the deeming provision under which any sum found credited in the books of an assessee, the nature and source of which the assessee fails to explain to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, is charged to income tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year.
Section 69A unexplained money is the deeming provision applicable where the assessee is found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article not recorded in books, and offers no satisfactory explanation. The unexplained money is deemed income of the financial year in which ownership is established.
Demand identification number is the unique number assigned to every demand raised on the e-portal — flowing from Section 143(1) intimations, Section 143(3) assessments, Section 147 reassessments, Section 154 rectifications, or penalty orders. The DIN is the reference for payment, stay petitions and appeal.
Document identification number is the system-generated unique number that, per CBDT Circular 19/2019, must be quoted on every notice, order and communication issued by the Department from 1 October 2019. Communications without DIN are non-est, as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v Brandix Mauritius Holdings.
Numerical examples showing tax + interest + penalty across common default scenarios.
How Teynampet businesses typically avoid these: Closer to Teynampet, the cluster of corporate offices, hospitality, healthcare businesses that defines Teynampet's commercial fabric, which is why for Teynampet businesses balancing growth ambitions with tight statutory compliance.
How the local trade mix shapes this — Across Teynampet, the cluster of corporate offices, hospitality, healthcare businesses that defines Teynampet's commercial fabric.
Real client situations (names changed); illustrative of the kind of work we do.
Why these Teynampet engagements look the way they do: Closer to Teynampet, the cluster of corporate offices, hospitality, healthcare businesses that defines Teynampet's commercial fabric, which is why for Teynampet businesses balancing growth ambitions with tight statutory compliance.
“Notice for AY 2016-17 issued in Aug-2023 invoking the 10-year limit. We demonstrated escaped income did not cross ₹50 lakh threshold and that sanction under Section 151 was from the wrong authority. Section 148A(d) order set aside on writ; reassessment dropped.”
“CASS-flagged scrutiny under Section 143(2) on bogus LTCG. Filed share register, demat statements, STT-paid contract notes and AO's own remand findings. Faceless Assessment Unit accepted explanation; addition of ₹38 lakh deleted in Section 143(3) order.”
“AO levied 200% misreporting penalty on disallowance of expenses. Argued the disallowance was on a debatable issue — possible-view doctrine — not misreporting. Faceless Penalty Centre accepted plea; penalty restricted to 50% under-reporting. Saved ₹4.6 lakh.”
“CPC adjusted ₹2.1 lakh refund of AY 2024-25 against an old AY 2018-19 demand that was already stayed by CIT(A). Filed disagreement on outstanding demand portal with stay order; refund released within 6 weeks.”
“CPC proposed adjustment disallowing HRA citing AIS mismatch. Filed reply within 30 days with rent receipts, landlord PAN, bank rent payment trail and revised computation. Adjustment dropped; refund of ₹78,000 issued.”
“Section 143(3) addition of ₹62 lakh on unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation. Filed Form 35 with Rule 46A petition; produced sales register, cash book and pre-demonetisation cash trends. CIT(A) deleted addition; Section 220(6) stay of demand obtained pending appeal.”
Common questions from Teynampet clients. Call 9566-068-468 for specific queries.
From Dr MGR Salai, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Bazullah Road, Cenotaph Road and Doctor Nair Road through to Dr Nair Road, Eldams Road, G N Chetty Road and Anna Salai, our team covers IT Notice Reply for businesses right across Teynampet and its main commercial roads.
Professional IT Notice Reply in Teynampet, Chennai. Call @ 9566-068-468. Offices at Maduravoyal, Nerkundram & Nolambur (upcoming). 15+ years experience, 4.9★ rated.
FilingPro Chennai — 15+ Years of Expert Tax & Business Consulting. Offices at Maduravoyal, Nerkundram & Nolambur (upcoming), Chennai. Call @ 9566-068-468. Disclaimer: Information on this page is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal, financial or tax advice. Consult a qualified professional for specific advice.