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 Kolkata quashes S. 271(1)(c) penalty against Baidya Nath Dey (AY 2011-12). Penalty notice invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb, a defect confirmed by the Calcutta High Court.
ITAT Kolkata allows Begpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 80P(2)(d) deduction on Rs.28 lakh interest. Tribunal distinguished the Totgars SC ruling, holding that interest from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
ITAT Kolkata remands 80P deduction appeal of Jotesriram Samabay Society back to CIT(A). The Tribunal orders fresh consideration of Rs.89 lakh interest income, stressing need for bifurcation and compliance with the Totgars SC ruling.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Asit Kumar Dutta. The Tribunal ruled that an incorrect deduction claimed by mistake, with full disclosure, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Mumbai rules that the principal component of a finance lease is a capital recovery, not taxable income. Surrendered depreciation requires exclusion of principal to avoid double taxation.
Gujarat High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards bogus Long Term Capital Gains [LTCG] from sale of penny stock cannot be sustained since genuineness of the stock proved with evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad ruled that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) doesn’t trigger Capital Gains Tax u/s 2(47)(v) when possession isn’t legally delivered, relying on SC/HC precedent.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes a ₹10.10 Cr TP adjustment on AE consultancy fees to Virinchi Ltd, holding TPO cannot question commercial expediency of services when ALP is proven.
ITAT Hyderabad held that alleged discrepancy i.e, the suppression of the purchases/sales/closing stock based on distorted figures by AO resulting to an exorbitant addition is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai set aside ex-parte assessment and appellate orders against the assessee for AY 2022-23. The matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessee directed to pay ₹25,000 to the PM Relief Fund.
