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...
Expenditure on tunnel-specific infrastructure was ruled not to give enduring benefit beyond the contract period. The ruling clarifies that longevity alone does not convert temporary project tools into capital assets.
The PCIT sought to revise the assessment for lack of arms length determination. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted when the TPO did not act. The decision reinforces limits on section 263.
Whether interest earned on fixed deposits by a credit co-operative society qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Ruling & Takeaway: The Tribunal held that interest from depositing surplus business funds in permitted banks is attributable to the credit business and eligible for deduction.
Authorities added ₹8 crore as unexplained investment in the wrong year. The Tribunal confirmed that the cash component belonged to a prior year. The ruling stresses year-specific taxation of undisclosed transactions.
While an error in computation was acknowledged, prejudice to Revenue was not established. The Tribunal quashed the revision for lack of both ingredients. The ruling clarifies strict thresholds for invoking section 263.
The case examined whether entire purchases could be treated as bogus when sales were undisputed. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 6%, holding that only a reasonable estimation was warranted.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on third-party information without independent application of mind is invalid. Income escaping assessment must be based on the Assessing Officer’s own reason to believe.
The Tribunal held that no commission income can arise from circular transactions within group entities. Additions based on estimated commission for such intra-group sales were deleted.
Applying settled law, the Tribunal held that penalties imposed after expiry of the limitation period are void. Both loan and repayment penalties were deleted across multiple years.
Mumbai ITAT held that unexplained bank credits are fully taxable under Section 68 when beneficiaries of accommodation entries are not identified. Mere claim of acting as an entry operator does not limit addition to commission income.
