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 Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that reassessment cannot be based on re-appreciation of facts already scrutinized earlier. Without failure of disclosure, invoking Section 147 beyond four years was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that repeated reopening cannot survive where statutory timelines are breached. A reassessment initiated beyond the permissible surviving period was quashed in entirety.
The Tribunal examined whether a branch office treated as a permanent establishment can deduct head-office cost reimbursements. ITAT held that full cost deduction is mandatory so that only profits attributable to the PE are taxed under Article 7.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
The Tribunal considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings remain valid even if no separate addition is made on the original reopening issue. The key lesson is that voluntary disclosure by the assessee satisfies the reopening requirement.
The Tribunal held that only unreconciled Form 26AS entries could be taxed while verified reimbursements deserved relief. It also ruled that godown rent already netted in business income could not be taxed again.
The Tribunal examined whether a creditor’s unilateral write-off automatically results in cessation of liability for the assessee. It held that such write-off requires factual verification and cannot, by itself, trigger addition under section 41(1).
The ruling clarified that exemption under section 54F cannot be denied if it was not part of the reasons for reopening. Reassessment was quashed as the sole addition lay outside recorded grounds.
