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 income of a predecessor company for years before amalgamation can be reassessed in the hands of the successor. ITAT held that such clubbing is impermissible and the reassessment itself is void.
Where capital subsidy was not received in the relevant year and no addition followed, reopening lacked basis. Mechanical reliance on audit objections was held unlawful.
The issue was whether a seized loose paper alone can justify an on-money addition under section 69. ITAT held that without independent corroboration, such addition cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal examined whether a single, consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years meets the requirement of Section 153C. It held that such consolidated recording vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the search assessments void.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the show cause notice fails to specify the exact charge. ITAT held that a vague notice violates law, making the entire penalty unsustainable.
The issue was whether six years of search assessments could stand when the first appeal was dismissed ex-parte. ITAT held that denial of meaningful hearing violates natural justice and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The case addressed the legality of assessments framed pursuant to a search when the satisfaction note lacked statutory particulars. The Tribunal quashed all assessments, holding them non-est in law due to invalid satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on a specific appellate direction is legally valid under section 150(1). The key takeaway is that such directions must be challenged separately and cannot be questioned collaterally in reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
The tribunal held that Section 41(1) applies only when a liability is actually remitted or ceases to exist. Mere passage of time or old outstanding balances cannot justify a deemed income addition.
