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 held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish between under-reporting and misreporting of income. The penalty was deleted for lack of a specific finding.
The High Court upheld the Tribunals finding that an uncorroborated loose Excel sheet could not sustain an addition of alleged on-money. It ruled that the Tribunal’s factual findings disclosed no perversity or substantial question of law.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory before initiating penalty under Section 271D. In the absence of such satisfaction, the penalties were deleted.
The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B must be determined based on the assessee’s own last panchanama despite a joint search warrant. As the assessments were completed beyond the prescribed period, they were quashed.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments were quashed after applying the limitation prescribed under the Act.
The ITAT Pune upheld the deduction under Section 10AA after finding that the Assessing Officer had not established that the SEZ units were formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. It followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
The Mumbai ITAT upheld deletion of notional interest on interest-free advances to a subsidiary, finding the issue consistently decided in earlier years. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of changed facts, the CIT(A) rightly followed binding precedents.
The ITAT Pune held that deletion of the addition was premature as the source of cash payments reflected in seized diaries had not been properly examined. It remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.
The Hyderabad ITAT restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify whether project support and business development costs qualify as Head Office expenditure under Section 44C. It held that the classification requires factual verification before deciding the allowable deduction.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash claimed as marriage gifts could not be accepted where the assessee failed to explain why it remained with him long after the marriage. The Tribunal sustained the addition relating to the Shagun amount.
