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 Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the Section 14A disallowance made on Srivaru Agro Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals {CIT (A))to verify the availability of the company’s own interest-free funds vis-à-vis investments and the reasonableness of administrative expenses, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in South Indian Bank Ltd.
In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
The Tribunal set aside the PCIT’s revision of a scrutiny assessment, ruling the action invalid because the Assessing Officer’s view on critical items like creditors and PF/ESI payments was already plausible and reasoned. Introducing new issues not covered in the show-cause notice constituted an exercise of jurisdiction beyond the permissible scope of Section 263.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of a senior NRI, condoning the 1695-day delay because the assessment order was served on a corporate email that became inactive after his contract ended. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after issuing notice to the taxpayer’s correct personal email, highlighting the priority of natural justice over strict delay excuses.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
The ITAT restored the assessee’s appeal, condoning the delay because the NFAC sent crucial communications to a wrong email, thus depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The ruling confirms that the entire appellate proceeding becomes non-est if service of notice is flawed, and the matter must be decided afresh on its merits.
The Delhi ITAT in Jain Textile Industries v ACIT upheld the validity of a Section 147 reopening, ruling that where specific issues like omitted interest income and capital expenditure on accessories were not examined in the original assessment, the reopening is not a mere ‘change of opinion’ and is justified, even after four years.
ITAT Delhi held that cash-in-hand reflected in audited books remains valid even if no return was filed for the prior year, deleting the entire unexplained cash addition.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that Marketing & Reservation Contributions (MRC) received by a US-based hotel brand entity from Indian franchisees are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Royalty under the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal followed the principle of judicial consistency, reiterating that these receipts were not compensation for managerial or technical services.
Assessment order was quashed because ITO who issued the Section 143(2) notice exceeded their pecuniary limits as prescribed by CBDT instructions. This decision provides a key takeaway that the jurisdiction limit set by the CBDT for assigning cases to ITOs versus higher-ranking officers is mandatory, and a breach invalidates the assessment proceedings.
