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 ITAT confirmed that even where technical jurisdiction exists (i.e., abated years), high-pitched additions must be examined on substantive merits, finding the AOs reliance on conjecture and arbitrary estimations unsustainable. This judgment serves as a strong precedent that mere jurisdiction under Section 153A doesn’t grant a license for evidence-less or double taxation.
The ITAT restored the Section 11 exemption, ruling that the Diamond Bourse’s cost-recovery activities are purely facilitative and do not constitute “trade, commerce, or business” under the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal held that genuine General Public Utility (GPU) organizations operating on a non-profit, cost-recovery basis are not affected by the amendment.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
ITAT Raipur held that since order passed by Pr. CIT u/s. 263 is quashed the addition made by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 does no more survive. Therefore, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition made by AO liable to be quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a business’s cash deposits during the demonetisation period were not unexplained under 68, provided they were sourced from genuine sales. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, holding that the lower authorities stock calculation was flawed and statutory records (VAT, Audited Books) corroborated the sales genuineness.
This ITAT ruling draws a clear line: it upheld the legal and evidence-based addition of ₹6.12 lakh for deemed rental income on multiple house properties, but simultaneously deleted the entire ₹5,87,500 addition for unexplained cash credit, condemning the use of arbitrary 50% estimations by tax authorities.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹10 lakh penalty, ruling that an estimated addition based on the non-genuineness of purchases does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court principle that making an unsustainable claim does not automatically attract a penalty.
The ITAT significantly reduced an unexplained cash credit addition from Rs. 32.86 lakh to a lump-sum of Rs.4 lakh, reasoning that a regular exporter with maintained books cannot have the entire demonetisation deposit treated as unexplained. Crucially, the Tribunal directed the tax to be computed at normal rates, holding that Section 115BBE (higher tax rate) does not apply to the financial year 2016-17.
