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 Delhi held that the Revenue could not substitute the assessee’s consistent method of revenue recognition with the Percentage of Completion Method for only one assessment year. It deleted the profit estimation made on work-in-progress.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) remained the most appropriate method as there was no change in the assessee’s functional profile and earlier Tribunal decisions had consistently accepted it. The transfer pricing adjustment based on the internal Cost Plus Method was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that an adjustment against excess contributions already made to an approved gratuity fund could not be disallowed under Section 40A(7). It also held that contributions to an approved gratuity fund are allowable under Section 40A(7)(b), resulting in deletion of the disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during complete scrutiny and adopted a permissible view. Since the twin conditions under Section 263 were not satisfied, the revision order was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reassessment notice after finding that the seized inquiry register did not establish any direct or indirect connection with the taxpayer. It held that reopening based on vague material and presumptions was unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that the reassessment notice issued on 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s decisions. The reassessment proceedings were quashed without examining the merits of the additions.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Section 69C cannot be invoked where expenditure is duly recorded in the books and its source is fully explained. It deleted the addition relating to royalty, commission, and technical service payments.
The Gujarat High Court held that after considering the ledger entries correctly, the alleged escaped income was only ₹45 lakh, below the threshold under Section 149(1)(b). As the reopening was beyond the prescribed limitation, the order under Section 148A(d) was quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey proceedings under Section 133A, not a search under Section 132. Court ruled that Section 96(a)(i) cannot be applied beyond its express wording.
The Tribunal held that CPC could not process the return under Section 143(1) after the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that parallel proceedings under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) were not permissible.
