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 issue was whether the entire Section 80JJAA deduction could be rejected when some employees failed the 240-day condition. The Tribunal held that only ineligible employees’ costs can be disallowed, not the whole claim.
The Tribunal examined whether agricultural land qualified as a non-capital asset and upheld taxation after finding it within the prescribed municipal distance. The ruling reiterates that physical verification and reliable evidence prevail over unsupported certificates.
The Court held that reassessment was invalid where deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was lawfully claimed by a co-operative society. It ruled that interest from co-operative banks remains deductible when the assessee is not a co-operative bank.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Tribunal held that when closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include tax components, opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis. The case was remanded to ensure consistent valuation and accurate profit computation.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that section 220(2) interest cannot be charged where the original demand notice showed nil demand, holding that interest arises only after a valid section 156 notice.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
The Delhi High Court held that a withholding tax certificate cannot stand once the ITAT sets aside the finding of a dependent agent PE. Since the Revenue relied solely on quashed assessment orders, the 8.75% TDS was invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that expiry of 120 days under Section 132B does not trigger automatic release of seized assets. The only consequence of delay is interest liability, reaffirming that AO’s satisfaction is essential.
