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 held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
The ITAT held that rejecting Rule 11UA valuation without verifying exclusions of non-realisable assets violates natural justice. Valuation additions were remanded for fresh examination, stressing non-mechanical application of deeming provisions.
ITAT Hyderabad held LIBOR + 200 basis points is an appropriate rate of interest on outstanding trade receivables interest of bank short term deposit rate. Accordingly, TPO directed to compute interest on outstanding receivables by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional officer is void. Jurisdictional compliance is mandatory.
The ITAT ruled that section 269SS targets cash advances in property deals, not final sale consideration paid at registration. Penalty under section 271D was therefore not leviable.
The Tribunal held that estimating closing stock without rejecting books or identifying defects is unsustainable. Mere assumptions of revenue leakage cannot justify additions.
The issue was whether payments for supplying in-flight entertainment content constituted royalty. The Tribunal held that mere provision and processing of licensed content without transfer of copyright does not amount to royalty under the India-UK DTAA.
The issue was whether a mismatch between ledger sales and P&L sales justified a major addition. The Tribunal held that reconciliation explaining VAT, service tax, and other receipts removed the difference, making the addition unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi directed that a trust lacking 12A registration cannot be taxed on gross receipts; only surplus income applied outside charitable purposes is taxable.
The ITAT held that depreciation cannot be disallowed when ownership, usage, and actual cost of assets are undisputed. Mere suspicion about the source of funds is insufficient to deny statutory depreciation.
