Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Understand the statutory time limits for issuing income-tax notices and completing assessments under the Income-tax Act. The guide...
Income Tax : Learn the updated provisions governing rectification, assessments, reassessments, and appeals under the Income-tax Act. This guide...
Income Tax : Learn how different types of income tax assessments are conducted under the Income-tax Act. The FAQs explain assessment procedures...
Income Tax : Section 154 permits rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in assessment orders, intimations, and TDS/TCS processing s...
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 Delhi held legal services are not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and directed partner-wise DTAA examination. FTS addition was de...
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 : ITAT Surat held that delayed filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and remanded the matter after directing the AO to consider t...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Totgar's ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any specific infirmity in the assessee’s business expenditure before making a 10% ad hoc disallowance. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases could be taxed and affirmed a 2% estimation based on binding precedents in the assessee’s own earlier assessment years. The Revenue’s challenge to the reduced rate was rejected.
The Tribunal ruled that application software purchased independently from computer hardware is still covered under the specific depreciation entry for computer software. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow depreciation at 60% instead of 25%.
The Tribunal ruled that although CSR expenditure is not allowable under Section 37, eligible donations made to recognised institutions can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G. The assessee’s claim was allowed for eligible donations.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D could not be levied because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating such proceedings in the assessment order. The penalty was cancelled following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Tribunal held that documentary evidence established the genuineness of the share transactions and the Revenue failed to connect the assessee with any price manipulation. The addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition without examining whether the source of the assessee’s cash payments had been explained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a 25% ad hoc disallowance of agricultural expenses was unjustified since the assessee furnished bills, vouchers, bank statements, and detailed expense records. It directed deletion of the entire disallowance.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision restricting the addition on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of sustaining a 100% disallowance. It held that the appellate authorities rightly taxed only the income component embedded in the disputed transactions.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was set aside.
