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 High Court held that once identical transactions were examined and accepted in later assessments, the basis for reopening earlier years did not survive.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of an appeal without effective hearing violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to grant adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld revision where the Assessing Officer failed to examine an exempt LTCG claim linked to penny stock manipulation. The ruling affirms that lack of inquiry makes an order erroneous and prejudicial.
HC upheld Section 10A deduction after finding that STP unit was a new undertaking with fresh investment and infrastructure. It ruled that unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.
Madras High Court held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot review its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Notably jurisdiction of Tribunal is restricted only to rectify error and not review.
The High Court held that additions for excess cash and stock cannot rest only on a survey statement. It ruled that statements under Section 133A lack conclusive evidentiary value without corroborative material.
The Bombay High Court held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Post-search documents like base notes are insufficient to justify additions.
ITAT Cochin held that since loans and advances are denominated in foreign currency, LIBOR Rates would be more suitable for benchmarking. Accordingly, AO directed to benchmark the international transaction of loan/advances to Associated Enterprise using applicable LIBOR Rate.
ITAT Indore held that delay of 560 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) rightly not condoned as assessee has failed to give satisfactory and bonafide explanation. Accordingly, delay not condoned as no sufficient cause shown.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 68 cannot be sustained merely on statements recorded during a third-party survey under section 133A. In absence of independent enquiry, corroborative evidence, or cross-examination, such statements have no evidentiary value.
