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 Chandigarh quashed an assessment order made under Section 143(3) for a pre-search year, holding that after a Section 132 search, the assessment must mandatorily proceed under Section 148 with proper Section 148B approval. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s continuation of the scrutiny post-search was a jurisdictional error, making the assessment void ab initio.
Tribunal held that cost-to-cost reimbursements for IT support services do not qualify as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12 of the India-US DTAA, as no technical knowledge was “made available” to the Indian affiliate.
Calcutta HC ruled on challenging a Faceless Assessment order, directing the taxpayer to file an appeal when an objection to the 143(2) notice wasn’t raised earlier.
Loss of ₹7.66 Crore was allowable as bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), recognising the loss as a genuine business loss arising from NSEL’s operational suspension.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
ITAT quashed a reassessment, ruling that S 148 notice was invalid because it was issued before AO formally received mandatory sanction from PCIT under S 151. Relying on Supreme Court, Tribunal held that internal approval is insufficient; communication of sanction to AO is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Tribunal ruled that high-rate tax under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to assessment year 2017-18 cash deposit, as section applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Decision directs AO to compute consequential tax liability under normal provisions.
Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
Addition to the differential margin between the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee and the benchmark rate of 10% adopted as the industry average for rice trading was restricted affirming that a full disallowance of such purchases was not justified when the corresponding sales were accepted by the Revenue authorities.
The ITAT Panaji sent the disallowance of agricultural income back to the AO for fresh review, finding that the lower authorities ignored substantial documents and confirmations provided by the assessee. The ruling confirms that tax authorities must properly verify factual material and grant a fair hearing before disbelieving a farm income claim.
