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 Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond six years is invalid without a recorded satisfaction of undisclosed assets exceeding ₹50 lakh. The takeaway is strict compliance with the fourth proviso to section 153A is mandatory.
The reassessment relied entirely on allegations arising from a search on another entity. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot survive without independent evidence directly linking the assessee.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
This ruling clarifies that an assessee can be treated as an agent of a non-resident only if income is received directly or indirectly for the NRI. In the absence of such receipt or business connection, representative assessment fails.
The Tribunal examined whether prior approval under Section 153D was granted after due application of mind. It held that mechanical and routine approval invalidates the assessment, rendering the search assessment void.
The Tribunal ruled that completion of assessment after search, despite statutory abatement, is impermissible. Jurisdiction shifts exclusively to Section 153A proceedings.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the education cess claim after a retrospective amendment. A bona fide claim made on prevailing judicial views does not amount to under-reporting or misreporting.
The issue was an appellate order passed with facts, year, and income of another assessee. The Tribunal held the order void and directed a fresh decision in the correct case.
The tribunal held that suspicion, abnormal price rise, or third-party reports are insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. Revenue must establish direct involvement of the taxpayer in price rigging.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the notice does not specify the exact charge. The Tribunal held that a vague notice vitiates the entire penalty proceedings, even where AMT liability exists.
