Income Tax : Learn about various types of income tax assessments under Sections 143, 144, and 147, their procedures, time limits, and taxpayer ...
Corporate Law : Learn to address crucial Income Tax notices like 143(1), 143(2), 148, 139(9), and 245. Timely, informed action prevents penalties,...
Income Tax : Summary of statutory deadlines for issuing income tax notices (Sec 143, 147) and completing assessments, reassessments, and appeal...
Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before re...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on ...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 153C assessment, ruling that the ITAT had already addressed the ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of a ₹2.5 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessee provided full documenta...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found the additional disallowance of ₹4.11 crore excessive and unsupported by evidence.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 153C assessment, ruling that the ITAT had already addressed the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court judgment. Since the ITAT order contained a finding on the judgment’s applicability, the assessee’s only recourse was a statutory appeal under Section 260A.
The ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of a ₹2.5 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessee provided full documentary proof of the loan’s identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal emphasized that once the primary onus is discharged, the AO must conduct an independent inquiry rather than relying on an unverified Investigation Wing report.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, violates natural justice. The ₹60 lakh on-money allegation was deleted.
ITAT condoned a significant seven-year delay in filing an appeal, recognizing assessee’s status as an NRI and his lack of awareness of assessment order as a bona fide cause. This ruling affirms the liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
ITAT Mumbai held that in absence of recording of non-satisfaction in terms of section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, invocation of Rule 8D is not permissible. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act impermissible since based solely on change of opinion without any new tangible material. Further, even on merits royalty payment represents a legitimate business expenditure allowable u/s. 37(1).
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
The ITAT Rajkot set aside the addition of ₹16.99 lakhs in Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) against the assessee, who acted only as a Power of Attorney (POA) holder for the property sale. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee was not the property owner or seller.
