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 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 : ITAT Delhi held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Totgar's ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The ITAT held that an assessee can contest a Section 143(1) adjustment in an appeal against the assessment order if the adjustment is retained therein. The case emphasizes that multiple statutory remedies may coexist.
The Chennai ITAT held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 on matters already under consideration before the appellate authority. The ruling emphasises the statutory bar against parallel revision proceedings on the same issue.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of a ₹10 lakh deduction after the recipient political party informed the tax authorities that it had not received the contribution. The ruling emphasises that taxpayers must establish the genuineness of donations claimed under Section 80GGC.
The dispute concerned whether dividend received on capital reduction by a foreign subsidiary could trigger restrictions under Section 115BBDA. ITAT held that the statutory conditions of Section 115BBDA were not satisfied, and therefore the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The ITAT Pune held that a genuine claim for exemption under Section 10(20) cannot be rejected merely because the assessee mistakenly claimed a deduction under a different provision in its return.
The ITAT Mumbai held that when the reason recorded for reopening an assessment does not ultimately result in any addition, the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition on a completely different issue.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Assessing Officer accepted income without making an addition after conducting enquiries. The ruling clarifies that revisionary powers require a lack of enquiry, not just a difference of opinion over the adequacy of verification.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were invalid where the case was based on search material requiring action under Section 153C. The ruling reinforces that search-related assessments for third parties must follow the special procedure under Section 153C, not regular reassessment provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delayed appeal filing after finding sufficient cause and allowed the matter to proceed. It also clarified that reassessment jurisdiction remains valid despite arguments regarding faceless assessment provisions.
The Tribunal held that technical glitches on the income tax portal, coupled with grievances raised by the taxpayer, justified condonation of a 2-month and 21-day delay in filing an appeal. The key takeaway is that genuine system-related difficulties may amount to sufficient cause for procedural delays.
