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 Delhi directs the exclusion of the Rs. 84.95 lakh Transfer Pricing adjustment from the Book Profits (u/s 115JB), citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. that the AO cannot tamper with the net profit determined under the Companies Act, except for specified adjustments.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits during demonetization, already reflected in the assessee’s books, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Entire Rs.53.51 lakh addition was deleted, ensuring no double taxation.
ITAT Delhi Strikes Down Addition: Sale share cannot be treated as an unsecured loan (u/s 68). The tribunal deletes the Rs. 1.41 Cr addition on sale consideration receipt, remanding the s. 54F deduction claim for limited verification.
Mumbai ITAT allowed Mahindra & Mahindra’s appeal, holding that advertisement and sales promotion expenses of ₹3.26 Cr for ‘Mahindra Parts Plazas’—which were owned and operated by distributors—were revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, rejecting AO’s capitalization.
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.8.43 Cr addition u/s68. Assessee proved lenders’ identity, PAN, and bank transfers. Suspicion over creditworthiness cannot replace evidence.
Bangalore ITAT set aside PCIT’s s.263 order, ruling that difference of opinion on profit estimation rate (6% vs 8%) for a contractor isn’t grounds for revision.
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.50,000 penalty under s.272A(1)(d), ruling COVID-19 hospitalization was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to multiple notices issued in quick succession.
Tribunal deleted ₹15.20 lakh addition of unconfirmed sundry debtors and limited bogus purchase disallowance to 10%, citing regular books and stock records.
In HIM Restaurants Private Limited Vs ITO, the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld tax additions, confirming the rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) due to the assessee’s failure to produce evidence and discrepancies in its financial reporting.
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in Shelender Kumar Jain Vs ACIT, has ruled against making adhoc disallowances on verified business expenses.
