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...
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69 could not be sustained merely on the basis of statements recorded from representatives of the builder group. In the absence of incriminating material directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment, the addition of ₹31 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessees could not substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions underlying the LTCG claims. The additions under Section 68 were sustained after the Tribunal found that the evidence supported the Revenue’s conclusion of accommodation entries.
The Tribunal examined whether donations made as part of CSR obligations could qualify for deduction under Section 80G. It held that deduction cannot be denied merely because the payment was made towards CSR, subject to fulfillment of Section 80G conditions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
The ITAT held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessees did not constitute a valid approval under Section 153D. As a result, the assessment order was quashed and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that compensation paid to terminate a land sale agreement was a business expenditure incurred for commercial reasons. The amount could not be treated as part of closing stock and was allowable under Section 37.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that transfer pricing authorities cannot assign a NIL arm’s length price when the assessee has demonstrated actual receipt of intra-group services through supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 1.25 crore through bank records, PPF withdrawals, and documented fund movements. Since the transactions were verifiable through banking channels, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.
