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...
Denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for non-furnishing of Form 3CL did not preclude normal deduction u/s 35(1)(i) and depreciation u/s 32, as the research was related to the assessee’s business.
Delhi High Court directed payment of ₹ 36.85 lakh plus interest after Income-Tax Department delayed acting on ITAT order on indexation for inherited asset of AY 2016-17.
The ITAT Mumbai held that income already taxed in the hands of a trust cannot be taxed again in the hands of its beneficiary, deleting an addition of ₹1.24 crore.
Delhi High Court set aside notice under Sections 148A(3) & 148 when petitioner’s objections and documents were not considered before reopening for AY 2019-20.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries before allowing ESOP expenditure, invalidating the PCIT’s revision under section 263.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
Revenue from film distribution was specifically excluded from the definition of “royalty” under both the Act and the India-USA DTAA and interest earned on income tax refund was not effectively connected with any permanent establishment in India and should be taxed at 15% as per Article 11(2) of the India-US DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transaction of payment of bareboat charter hire fees is directed to be deleted since benchmarking approach of assessee is already accepted by DRP in earlier years.
Delhi High Court held that order is liable to be set aside and matter remanded to ITAT since ITAT failed to provide appropriate reasoning with regard to functionality of comparable while undertaking transfer pricing adjustment.
