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 quashes PCIT’s S. 263 revision against Colgate Palmolive, holding PCIT cannot disregard binding Coordinate Bench order based merely on Supreme Court appeal pendency.
Assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation because it was not served within the prescribed time. AO countered this, claiming the order was dispatched via speed post on December 30, 2017, and had thus left the office within the deadline.
Delhi High Court held that addition of demonetization cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit rightly deleted by CIT(A) since source of deposit duly explained with documentary evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
High Court held that the Revenue itself had accepted the provision in earlier years and not disputed it even before the jurisdictional High Court in appeal for AY 2009-10. Since the provision was scientific and actually discharged, no substantial question of law arose.
ITAT Indore held that reopening of assessment done by Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, based on tax audit report already available during original assessment, without any fresh and new material is invalid and liable to be quashed.
Bangalore ITAT in Suthakar Selvaraj vs. ITO deletes unexplained cash addition for a salaried employee, ruling that mere presumptions about cash withdrawal and re-deposit habits cannot be a basis for addition under the Income-tax Act when bank statements show sufficient withdrawals.
Late Mahabir Prasad (through L/H Mrs. Parul Kansaria) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Restricts Additions in Search Assessment – Statement Alone Not Incriminating- No Addition in Concluded Years Without Incriminating Material- Unaccounted Sales – Only GP Taxable, Not Entire Turnover Bangalore ITAT dealt with additions arising out of search proceedings in the A-One Steel […]
Bangalore ITAT cancelled a penalty u/s 271D on an 82-year-old for receiving Rs.10 lakh cash from a property sale, finding “reasonable cause” u/s 273B due to his bona fide belief and the transaction’s genuineness.
A summary of ITAT Chennai’s order in Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO, which sustained both unexplained investment under Section 69 and professional receipts found via Form 26AS but not declared in income tax return.
ITAT Chandigarh held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act set aside since own funds and reserves of the assessee are more than sufficient to cover the investment made during the year. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
