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...
Court considered whether admissions made by seller in settlement proceedings could affect purchaser’s depreciation claim. It held that such admissions do not undermine depreciation claimed on a bona fide slump sale.
The ITAT Jaipur held that joint ownership of a new property does not bar full exemption under Section 54F if the assessee funds the purchase and retains control over the asset.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Revenue challenged deletions of additions in a scrutiny assessment, highlighting procedural lapses under Rule 46A. Tribunal remitted the matter for fresh adjudication considering additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that cash seized and previously taxed in the brother’s assessment cannot be taxed again in the assessee’s hands, remanding the issue to the AO for verification.
The ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
Tribunal ruled that examining purchases was permissible under limited scrutiny for sales mismatch. However, the 3% profit estimation was found arbitrary and sent back for fresh computation.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
The court ruled that once purchases are found unproved, restricting additions to a profit percentage is incorrect. Full disallowance is required under Section 69C where genuineness is not established.
