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 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
Interest was disallowed solely because the payee had not declared it. The Tribunal relied on Form 26AS showing payment and TDS to allow the claim. The ruling underscores documentary evidence over conjecture.
Despite deficiencies in documentation, agricultural activity and landholding were undisputed. The Tribunal granted partial relief while sustaining a modest addition. The decision highlights a balanced approach where activity is proven but evidence is imperfect.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, corresponding purchases cannot be disallowed in entirety. Documentary evidence and bank payments outweighed mere doubts about supplier compliance.
The issue was whether a post-search assessment could be completed under section 143(3) using third-party material. The Tribunal ruled that the special reassessment route under sections 148 and 148B was mandatory.
The Tribunal held that estimating business income at 10% of turnover without citing comparable cases or industry benchmarks is unsustainable. Arbitrary profit estimation must be supported by material evidence.
Taxing a debenture waiver as revenue income was challenged. The Tribunal rejected the approach, holding the waiver arose from capital financing and not trading operations. The ruling confirms that capital restructuring gains are not taxable by default.
The court held that additions for excess stock and cash cannot be sustained when based solely on a survey statement under Section 133A, reaffirming that such statements lack conclusive evidentiary value.
The tribunal held that dismissal for delay and confirmation on merits without effective hearing violated principles of natural justice, warranting remand for fresh adjudication.
The court held that an Assessing Officer must give clear reasons while rejecting an immunity application under Section 270AA. An unreasoned rejection order was found unsustainable and was set aside.
