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 Bangalore invalidated a reassessment where the assessee was not provided the recorded reasons, emphasizing that reopening notices must be supported by clear, communicated reasons before filing returns.
The Tribunal ruled that routine replacement of plant and machinery parts does not create a new asset or enduring benefit. Such expenses were held to be revenue in nature and fully deductible.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from bank deposits is attributable to its core business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), reversing the denial by lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that while arbitrary disallowances are not sustainable, inadequate substantiation justifies estimation. Disallowances were restricted to 50% to balance fairness and compliance.
The Tribunal struck down reopening where reasons conflicted and rested solely on AIR cash-deposit data. The key takeaway is that reassessment needs a clear, reasoned nexus.
The ruling set aside a large AMP adjustment after finding that commission paid to distributors could not be recharacterized as marketing expenditure. Consistency with prior years played a decisive role in deleting the adjustment.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could alter income despite a valid APA and modified return. The Court held that without an adverse TPO audit or APA cancellation, reassessment adjustments were without jurisdiction.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The issue was whether a ₹3.05 crore disallowance under section 14A could stand without nexus to exempt income. The ITAT held that only a reasonable amount with clear linkage can be disallowed, capping it at ₹10 lakh.
The ITAT held that land-levelling and fencing expenses are integral to acquiring agricultural land and qualify for section 54B deduction. The ruling clarifies what constitutes eligible investment despite restricting unregistered costs.
