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 Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases was warranted where contract receipts were accepted, substantial gross profit had already been disclosed, and there was no evidence of cash being returned to the assessee.
Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penalty initiation. Failure to comply with Section 144C renders the assessment void and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest to the date of refund determination under Section 143(1) was found to be incorrect.
The ITAT held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot apply where equity shares are issued upon conversion of CCDs without receipt of fresh consideration during the relevant year. The ruling emphasizes that the provision is triggered only upon actual receipt of share consideration.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. Since the recorded reasons contained no such allegation, the notice under Section 148 was declared invalid. The consequential reassessment order was quashed.
The ITAT Chennai held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since the Tribunal had issued no direction to tax ₹5 crore as income from other sources, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that actual rent received under genuine, registered agreements cannot be replaced with hypothetical market rent without cogent evidence of manipulation or unaccounted consideration. Since the Revenue failed to establish suppression of rent, the ALV addition was deleted.
ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cash resources to meet the impugned credit card payments. Since the authorities did not establish utilisation of cash elsewhere, the addition was deleted.
The Chennai ITAT held that payments received by a UAE resident could not be taxed as Fees for Technical Services in India because the India-UAE DTAA lacks an FTS provision. In the absence of a Permanent Establishment, the income was treated as business profits not taxable in India.
