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...
Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied without examining crucial evidence. The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and legal issues.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained as no genuine business need for holding large idle cash was shown. The tribunal upheld the Section 68 addition, stressing proof of necessity and cash retention.
While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revive the matter depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The issue was whether reassessment proceedings could continue when sanction was granted by an incorrect authority. The Court ruled that lack of approval from the designated authority vitiated the entire reassessment.
The Court held that adjusting refunds beyond 20% of a disputed penalty during a pending appeal violates CBDT instructions and ordered refund of the excess amount.
The Tribunal set aside an appellate order confirming a ₹1.38 crore addition after finding that it lacked merit-based reasoning. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with a speaking order.
The ruling held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the permissible period were legally unsustainable. The decision reinforces strict adherence to limitation provisions.
The issue was whether timely issuance was enough when notice was served after limitation. The court held that delayed service under section 143(2) invalidates the entire assessment.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer doesn t have authority to declare mortgage as void-ab-initio. Tax Recovery Officer can only enforce attachments under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
