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 Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act impermissible since based solely on change of opinion without any new tangible material. Further, even on merits royalty payment represents a legitimate business expenditure allowable u/s. 37(1).
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
The ITAT Rajkot set aside the addition of ₹16.99 lakhs in Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) against the assessee, who acted only as a Power of Attorney (POA) holder for the property sale. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee was not the property owner or seller.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a faceless assessment order totaling Rs. 3.87 crore after finding the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s timely reply, violating principles of natural justice.
Delhi ITAT held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made without Assessing Officer recording satisfaction about correctness of assessee’s claim. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, ₹25.06 lakh disallowance was deleted.
Gujarat High Court held that non-granting of personal hearing in spite of being requested is clear violation and breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order quashed and remanded to AO for fresh de novo order.
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that trade scheme payment to sales promoters whether pure reimbursement or not needs proper verification and since AO granted relief without proper verification and application of mind, PCIT rightly invoked revisionary proceedings u/s. 263.
The ITAT Bangalore confirmed that an initial order’s failure to consider a binding High Court ruling on bad debt deductibility constitutes a mistake apparent from record. This allowed the bank to claim a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for non-rural bad debts via rectification, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The key takeaway is that disregarding settled jurisdictional law is a rectifiable error, not a debatable issue.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance of interest expense after the real estate firm successfully proved that the mutual fund investment in question was made using interest-free own funds, not borrowed capital. The ruling emphasizes that disallowance requires evidence of borrowed funds being diverted for non-business purposes.
