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 dispute involved additions of partners capital treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal did not rule on merits but remanded the matter due to procedural violation by the appellate authority. It highlights that appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking.
The tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153C cannot stand without valid satisfaction as mandated by law. Failure to examine this jurisdictional issue vitiates the proceedings.
The tribunal held that estimating commission income at 1% without verifying the existence of a genuine Shroff business was legally unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
Where funds were merely routed through the assessee’s bank account, the tribunal ruled that only commission income is taxable. The earlier 2% estimation was reduced to 1.5% as more reasonable.
The dispute centered on whether omission to verify exceptional items prejudices revenue. The Tribunal upheld revision, emphasizing Explanation 2 to section 263. The ruling reinforces that absence of inquiry itself is sufficient ground for revision.
The dispute concerned late filing of an audit report triggering penalty under section 271B. The Tribunal accepted personal hardship and first-year audit obligation as reasonable cause under section 273B. The decision reinforces relief where delay is genuine and explained.
The Tribunal emphasized that exempt income disclosed in the return cannot be taxed due to a technical reporting mistake. Substance of disclosure prevails over form where facts are undisputed.
The Tribunal examined whether professional fees claimed were actually incurred and for business purposes. It held that absence of evidence like bank payment, TDS, and service details justified disallowance.
The Assessing Officer alleged incorrect claim of stamp duty expenditure without identifying any such entry in the accounts. The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding it to be based on presumption.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of entire business losses by Assessing Officer without pointing out specific defects is not permissible. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and order set aside.
