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 held that the assessment was invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on the legal ground.
The ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation could not be disallowed in subsequent years after it had been accepted in the initial assessment. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on CSR deduction under Section 80G.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovery exceeding 20% of the disputed tax demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A) was unsustainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It directed refund of the excess amount recovered.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the disallowance of employees’ PF/ESI contributions deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts. Following binding Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that payment before filing the income tax return does not cure the delay, while remanding the Form 26AS mismatch issue for fresh verification.
Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section 68 in the facts of the case. Following its earlier decision, it upheld taxation only of the profit embedded in the transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that an assessment framed after an approved merger in the name of the amalgamating company was without jurisdiction. The assessment order and DRP directions were set aside because the company had ceased to exist.
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.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 252-day delay after finding that the assessees legal representatives had shown sufficient cause arising from illness, death and family disputes. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without evaluating the delay condonation application and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could not arbitrarily determine the arm’s length price of management services at nil despite evidence establishing receipt of services. The Tribunal restored the assessees TNMM-based benchmarking by following its earlier decision.
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.
