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 court upheld restoration of appeals where earlier dismissal was without merits due to settlement proceedings. Delay condonation and remand were held valid with no jurisdictional error.
The case addressed the correct head of income for interest earned on staff loans. The court affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that such income arises in the normal course of business and found no ground to interfere.
The issue was whether interest could be taxed on interest-free advances where no interest was charged or received. The Tribunal held that hypothetical income cannot be taxed without accrual or deeming provision. The ruling reinforces that only real income is taxable.
The Tribunal held that merely reclassifying a disclosed business loss as speculative loss does not amount to under-reporting. Penalty under section 270A was therefore deleted.
The dispute centered on whether co-insurance administration fees required tax deduction at source. The Tribunal upheld their allowability without TDS, noting the issue was repeatedly settled in earlier years. The key takeaway is that consistent past rulings in identical facts will be followed.
The Tribunal held that despite repeated notices, interests of justice required another opportunity. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with costs imposed for prior non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that notional interest cannot be taxed where sufficient interest-free funds exist and no real income has accrued. The Revenue’s challenge to deletion of interest addition was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material linked to the loan was found, the Section 68 addition was deleted.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The Madras High Court held that companies could not file manual income-tax returns after e-filing became mandatory from May 14, 2007. A manual return filed for AY 2008–09 was held legally invalid.
