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 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 : ITAT Delhi held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Totgar's ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshold under the India-Canada DTAA. Consequently, income attribution to the alleged PE was held to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT Delhi held that no notional rent could be charged for the period during which unsold commercial units remained stock-in-trade. Notional rent, if any, could be computed only after conversion into investment property, with statutory deductions also being available.
Mumbai ITAT held that the Revenue could not attribute the entire execution revenue from cross-border deals to the Indian PE without adequate evidence. The Tribunal upheld revenue sharing based on actual functions performed by overseas offices.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when the entire property investment is supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that conjectures cannot substitute proof.
The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficient without transaction-specific evidence. The key takeaway is that direct documentary proof carries greater evidentiary value.
The Revenue treated a ₹2 crore accumulation disclosed in Form No. 10 as unaccounted income of the trust. The Tribunal ruled that procedural filings cannot substitute evidence of actual income and deleted the addition.
The Revenue disallowed loan repayments alleging double deduction of charitable expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence established that no double claim had been made and directed deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant year.
The issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely because the notes ceased to be legal tender.
