Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : The article explains how the Finance Acts, 2025 and 2026 have reshaped the Updated Return regime under Section 139(8A). It highlig...
Income Tax : The article explains that 30 June is the Department's deadline to issue scrutiny notices for eligible returns, not a filing deadli...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
Income Tax : Read how Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association addresses last-minute case reallocations affecting timely issuance of notices...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court has ruled that it is mandatory for the Income Tax Department to issue notice within the prescribed time limit of...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that additions made in an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be disputed in an appeal against a scrutiny a...
Income Tax : Interest on delayed payment of the FM radio migration fee was a compensatory business expenditure deductible under Section 37(1); ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of ex...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted a Section 69 addition after finding documentary evidence established joint ownership, source of funds, and ear...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : Understand the guidelines set by the Indian Ministry of Finance for the compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny duri...
Income Tax : CBDT hereby authorises the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (NaFAC) having her / his headqua...
Income Tax : The three formats of notice(s) are: Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection}, Complete Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scruti...
Income Tax : Central Board of Direct Taxes, with approval of the Revenue Secretary, has decided to modify notice under section 143(2) of the In...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
Tribunal observed that it is for the businessman to decide how to organise business finances unless there is evidence of tax evasion. It deleted the Section 68 addition after finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds.
ITAT Delhi held that merely reflecting depreciation in an incorrect schedule of the income tax return could not justify an addition under Section 69. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Income Tax Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Bangalore held that interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits made under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It set aside the orders denying the deduction.
Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37 and not governed by Section 35E. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Bangalore ITAT held that customer deposits representing sale proceeds could not be taxed in full as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate business income at 8% of the receipts, holding that only the profit element was taxable.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. It ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The ITAT ruled that failure to produce confirmations from debtors did not justify additions where sales, ledger accounts, and sample invoices were already on record. It directed deletion of the additions after finding no contrary evidence from the Revenue.
The ITAT ruled that bonus payments recorded in a separate bonus ledger, audit report, and profit and loss account could not be disallowed merely because they were absent from the salary ledger.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits recorded in audited books of account could not be treated as unexplained merely because they included specified bank notes. Since the Revenue found no defects in the books or evidence of bogus receipts, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
