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 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 : ITAT Delhi held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Totgar's ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax and similar State Government incentives were capital receipts because the schemes were intended to promote industrialisation, backward area development and employment, applying the Supreme Court’s purpose test.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 where the Assessing Officer has already conducted inquiries and applied his mind to the disputed issues.
The ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on Investigation Wing information without independently analysing the material or establishing a nexus with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that contradictory third-party statements and unverified allegations cannot form the sole basis for taxing alleged on-money transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
The ITAT held that an untested third-party statement, without supporting evidence or cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty under Section 271D. It deleted the penalty after finding the Revenue failed to establish the alleged cash loan.
The ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made necessary inquiries and adopted a plausible view. It quashed the revision order after finding no lack of investigation into the related-party transaction.
The ITAT Mumbai held that revision under Section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had examined and consciously allowed deduction under Section 80G for eligible CSR expenditure.
The ITAT Mumbai held that ESOP discount is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1), observing that the pendency of an SLP against a High Court judgment does not justify disallowance.
The ITAT Delhi held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from export of services must be treated as operating income for transfer pricing purposes. It also ruled that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable to the relevant assessment year.
The ITAT held that no addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was warranted where shares were allotted to existing shareholders and no fresh funds were received during the relevant year. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding the assessee’s valuation supported by registered valuers.
