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 issue was whether Section 50 can apply when no depreciation was ever claimed or allowed on cars. The Tribunal held that without actual depreciation, Section 50 cannot be invoked and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that confirmation of a Section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance does not automatically justify penalty. Independent findings showing inaccurate particulars or concealment are mandatory.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
The issue was whether a transfer pricing adjustment could survive when based solely on DRI allegations later dropped. The Tribunal held that once customs authorities exonerated the assessee, the TP adjustment had no foundation and was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings fail where notices do not clearly state whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. Vague notices violate statutory requirements, leading to deletion of penalty.
The issue was whether protective additions could survive after substantive additions were confirmed in other hands. ITAT Chandigarh held that once substantive additions are upheld, protective additions must be deleted to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal emphasized that where land cost is separately reflected, indexation must be granted. It remanded the matter to verify records and recompute capital gains accordingly, ensuring lawful assessment.
The Tribunal ruled that exemption for charitable trusts cannot be denied merely due to belated filing of Form 10B. It reaffirmed that the requirement is directory, not mandatory, when the audit report is eventually furnished.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposited during demonetisation came from genuine business sales already offered to tax. It held that taxing the same amount again under Section 68 and Section 115BBE would amount to impermissible double taxation.
