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 ITAT held that cash expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by aggregating payments. Since no payment to any person on a single day crossed the statutory limit, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited in demonetised notes cannot be taxed under Section 69A when it represents recorded business sales. The key takeaway is that duly accounted turnover cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to demonetisation.
The ITAT held that additions based on survey material cannot be sustained without proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after finding violation of natural justice.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could invoke section 68 in a limited scrutiny case focused on share premium under section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that, without mandatory approval to expand scrutiny, the addition was legally unsustainable.
The tribunal examined whether gold jewellery seized during police interception could be taxed as unexplained solely based on a statement recorded under enquiry. It held that additions fail where later evidence shows the assessment relied on weak corroboration and inconsistent reasoning.
The dispute concerned whether reimbursements from an associated enterprise justified a transfer pricing adjustment using the profit split method. The Tribunal set aside the adjustment, directing a fresh FAR analysis before determining ALP.
The Tribunal rejected estimated additions based on alleged circular trading due to lack of seized material or cash trail. The key takeaway is that suspicion and presumptions cannot replace evidence in search assessments.
The court held that reopening beyond the permissible period was invalid where full disclosures were made and no new material emerged. Reassessment based solely on existing records was ruled time-barred.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS credit duly reflected in Form 26AS cannot be denied just because of some procedural lapse. Accordingly, order is set aside and the present appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal found that CIT(A) erred by linking the protective addition to another company. The assessment was remanded for correct identification of the beneficiary.
