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...
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained by cash sales recorded in regular books. When books are not rejected and sales are accepted, separate addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was penalized without substantive evidence or effective cross-examination. Holding this contrary to principles of natural justice, the penalty was deleted. The case highlights procedural fairness in penalty matters.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment based on a notice issued beyond the AO s pecuniary authority is unsustainable. Compliance with CBDT jurisdiction instructions was held mandatory.
The issue involved taxing a marginal valuation difference on property purchase. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the variation was below the statutory tolerance threshold. The decision confirms that minor deviations alone cannot be treated as taxable income.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 14A could be made when no expenditure relating to exempt income was claimed. The Tribunal held that unclaimed expenses cannot be disallowed. The ruling reinforces that section 14A applies only to deductions actually claimed.
The Tribunal held that assets received under a compliant scheme of demerger cannot be taxed under Section 56(2)(x). Transactions covered by Section 47 exemptions fall outside the scope of deemed income.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions where cash sales during demonetisation were backed by invoices, VAT payments, and statutory records. Statistical suspicion alone cannot override credible primary evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that once additional evidence is admitted, the appellate authority must adjudicate it on merits. Absence of a speaking order required the matter to be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Disallowance based only on supplier non-compliance was held unsustainable.
The case examined whether tax authorities could deny working capital adjustment despite clear prior directions of the Tribunal. The ITAT held that such directions are binding and must be implemented in letter and spirit. Once the adjustment was granted, the assessee’s margin fell within the permissible arm’s length rang
