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 case examined whether the Assessing Officer could reject a DCF valuation. The Tribunal held that commercial valuation choices, if legally prescribed and supported, cannot be second-guessed.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot survive where sales were already offered to tax and later added again under section 68. The key takeaway is that double taxation cannot result in penalty when no tax was sought to be evaded.
The issue was whether final DRP-based assessments passed beyond statutory timelines are valid. The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 144C must be read with Section 153, rendering delayed final orders void.
The issue was whether reassessment could be reopened on matters already examined in scrutiny. The Tribunal held that without fresh tangible material, reopening amounts to change of opinion and is invalid.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding that work orders, invoices, and bank payments established genuineness of expenses. The ruling clarifies that suspicion alone cannot override documentary evidence.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when objections to reopening were ignored. The Tribunal ruled that non-disposal of objections violates mandatory procedure and renders the reassessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the case transfer under section 127 was invalid as it was passed by a non-jurisdictional authority. Since jurisdiction itself failed, the entire assessment was declared void ab initio.
The issue was whether penalty can survive once the underlying addition is deleted. The Tribunal held that penalty has no legs to stand when the quantum addition no longer exists.
The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without furnishing recorded reasons despite a taxpayers request. The Tribunal held that failure to supply reasons is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates reassessment.
The issue was whether income disclosed during survey and duly reported in the return can attract penalty under Section 270A. The Tribunal held that when returned income equals assessed income, penalty provisions do not apply.
