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 Rajkot partly allowed appeal, directing that 90% of cash deposited during demonetisation be accepted as explained, with only 10% taxable under normal income tax.
The Tribunal found that notices lacking classification as limited, complete, or manual scrutiny violated CBDT instructions. As a result, the assessment under section 143(3) was quashed as void ab initio.
Tribunal emphasizes requirement of notice under section 153C for assessments in block period, quashing AY 2021-22 assessment framed without jurisdiction.
The ITAT remitted the issue to the CIT(A), noting that exemption provisions were wrongly applied to a non-qualifying investor. The takeaway is that exemption claims in share premium cases must match statutory definitions and evidence.
The reassessment notice under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 did not comply with the amended provisions requiring enquiry and hearing. The NFAC held the reassessment order void ab initio. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural safeguards under amended law.
The NFAC remitted a statutory authority’s taxability under Section 2(15) to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee’s exemption claims under Sections 11 and 12 were disputed. The ruling ensures reassessment aligns with Supreme Court guidelines and provides a fair hearing.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal against the ITAT, holding that the assessee properly identified shareholders and explained the share premium, making Section 68 inapplicable. The ruling confirms that proper documentation can prevent share capital additions.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition made on the basis of documents found from the third party without providing any opportunity of cross-examination is liable to be deleted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed Section 80P deduction on bank interest after finding no binding jurisdictional ruling and applying the principle that the favorable view must prevail. The key takeaway is that surplus deposit interest qualifies for deduction in such circumstances.
Tribunal deleted protective additions after finding no corresponding substantive assessment. The ruling clarifies that protective action cannot stand alone under Sections 147/143(3).
