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 Tribunal found that the assessee’s audited accounts, finalized before demonetisation, clearly established sufficient cash balance to cover the ₹14 lakh deposit. Since Revenue produced no evidence of inflation or manipulation, the addition under Section 69A could not survive.
The Tribunal applied long-standing rulings invalidating the intensity and BLT approaches for AMP benchmarking, deleting both substantive and protective adjustments. The decision underscores that such methods lack statutory support.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in refusing to consider the USAID–AE agreement, which directly established the back-to-back cost-plus-6% model. It ruled that such crucial evidence cannot be dismissed on a procedural technicality and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Tribunal reviewed onion cultivation expenses claimed at 21% of gross receipts and found CIT(A)’s 35% estimate excessive. Net agricultural income accepted at Rs.67.12 lakh, partly allowing the appeal.
ITAT Bangalore confirmed that income admitted under Section 132(4) constitutes undisclosed income under Section 271AAB. The assessee’s claim of voluntary disclosure to avoid litigation was rejected, validating the ₹30 lakh penalty.
Tribunal ruled that amendments to Section 11(3) of Income Tax Act are prospective. Accumulated charitable funds utilized within permitted 5+1 years cannot be taxed, overturning prior additions.
Despite CIT(A) noting missing ITRs, Tribunal allowed TDS credit on the Rs. 1 crore part payment. Decision reinforces that TDS on income already taxed must be recognized and credited.
ITAT Pune held that late filing of audit report cannot disentitle trust from availing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) allowing claim of exemption u/s. 11 upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that when a 143(3) assessment merely adopts 143(1) figures without examining adjustments, taxpayers can still appeal the 143(1) intimation. Key takeaway: merger does not automatically block appeals.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
