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 Bangalore held that additions made in an intimation under Section 143(1) cannot be disputed in an appeal against a scrutiny a...
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 : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The reassessment was challenged for want of proper approval. The Tribunal ruled that ritualistic sanction under Section 151 defeats jurisdiction and renders the reopening void.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
The ITAT ruled that ad-hoc estimation of sundry creditors as ceased liabilities is not permissible when purchases and trading results are accepted. Section 41(1) can be invoked only on proven remission or cessation, not assumptions.
The authorities compared intra-group commission rates without economic analysis. The Tribunal ruled that such an approach leads to invalid transfer pricing adjustments.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A applies only when the assessee is found to be the owner of money or assets. Mere suspicion or digital communication cannot replace proof of possession or ownership.
The issue was whether purchases recorded by the assessee were genuine. The Tribunal held that seized Tally data and statements proved bogus purchases, justifying full addition.
The ITAT ruled that limitation begins when seized material is handed over to the assessing officer of the non-searched person. The key takeaway is that procedural safeguards apply even in search-related cases.
The ITAT ruled that accumulated building funds carried forward from previous years are not taxable in the year under scrutiny. The decision reinforces that taxation must align strictly with the year of receipt.
The tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained income when supported by audited books and stock records. Mere suspicion or surrounding circumstances cannot override accepted accounts.
A single approval was granted for multiple years without examining seized material or draft orders. The Tribunal ruled that such omnibus approval vitiates proceedings under Sections 153A/143(3).
