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...
Assessee was predominantly engaged in activities of imparting education and also involving the certain educational institutions. Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on disclosing nil income.
Assessee was a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, had undertaken a housing project named Aakash Nidhi. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,51,07,390 on the entire profit of the project comprising Wings A to G.
ITAT Jaipur held that trust incurring more expenditure than income doesn’t debar it from benefit of exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in respect of income admittedly applied for charitable purpose. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Jharkhand High Court held that order solely based on the judgement which has been later on over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court requires interference and hence the order passed by ITAT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act towards bogus purchases cannot be sustained merely for failure on the part of 3rd party in not responding to the summons. Addition set aside since genuineness of transaction proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that income from pharmacy and chemist division cannot be treated as business income from separate and independent activity. Thus, since pharmacy is an integral part of dominant purpose of hospital benefit u/s. 11(1) duly admissible.
Delhi High Court held that since AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23 assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in the name of non-existent entity (amalgamated company) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Bombay HC directs refund adjusted against demand, rules adjustment illegal as 20% paid & appeal pending, citing CBDT circulars & court precedent.
