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 held that provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act is not attracted to the licensee/assessee in respect of electricity duty. Thus, question is answered in favour of the assessee and hence appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since PCIT failed to establish that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is allowed towards different floors of a house considering it as single residential house. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted since adjustment was made in between interest paid and interest received thus the entire adjustment had no tax effect i.e. it is tax neutral.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi [CIT(E)] dated 28.06.2023 for cancellation of registration granted u/s 12A and u/s 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Chhattisgarh High Court held that reasonable cause has been shown for non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 269T of the Act and further it is not disputed that the transaction is genuine and bona fide.
In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 Hon’ble apex court have held that The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed.
AO observed that a perusal of the books of account (specifically cash book) of the companies, revealed that an amount of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.25 lacs respectively were given by both companies on imprest account to the assessee.
ITAT Pune held that addition towards short term capital gain based on unregistered agreement cannot be sustained since revenue has not brought any evidence on record that possession of property is actually handed over to the purchaser.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed in as much as all the necessary information were supplied by the assessee and there was no failure to disclose any material fact. Accordingly, reopening quashed.
