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...
ITAT held that issuing a draft notice with under 24 hours to reply violated natural justice. The assessment and appellate orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with fair opportunity.
The issue was whether Section 263 could be invoked despite adequate verification by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that a plausible, evidence-based view cannot be revised merely due to a differing opinion.
The ITAT upheld deletion of Section 68 additions where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of unsecured loans were proved through confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Once the AO raised no adverse findings in remand proceedings, the additions could not survive.
The Tribunal clarified that revisionary jurisdiction presupposes a valid assessment order. Where Section 153C itself is time-barred, Section 263 has no application.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised over a search assessment completed under Section 153C with proper approval under Section 153D. Unless such approval is shown to be erroneous, revisional jurisdiction does not arise.
The dispute centered on jurisdiction to assess under Section 153A. The Tribunal clarified that Kabul Chawla principles do not bar additions in abated assessments and ordered a de novo assessment.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the impugned scrip i.e. Kyra Landscapes Ltd. is not in the list of shares in the investigation report in case of project bogus LTCG/STCL. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The trust sought exemption by invoking later registration under section 12AA. The tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be granted retrospectively through section 154 when no assessment was pending on the registration date.
The Tribunal held that revision cannot be based on alleged lack of enquiry when detailed verification was already done. A mere change of opinion does not justify section 263 action.
The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax is effectively a tax on shareholder dividend income and is subject to DTAA benefits. Excess tax collected above the treaty rate was ordered to be refunded.
