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 Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 55A effective from 01.07.2012 was prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14. As a result, the DVO reference made for AY 2012-13 was held invalid and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not validly refer the property valuation to the DVO for Assessment Year 2012-13 under the unamended Section 55A. Since the valuation reference lacked legal authority, the addition to long-term capital gains could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2010-11, a reference to the DVO was impermissible where the assessee’s declared value exceeded the department’s estimate. The resulting capital gains addition was therefore deleted.
The Court held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A where the assessees registered valuer had reported a higher value. The reassessment based on such reference was therefore held impermissible.
ITAT Delhi held that deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied merely because donations were made as part of CSR obligations. The Tribunal ruled that contributions to eligible institutions remain deductible when statutory conditions are satisfied.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that purchases cannot be treated as entirely bogus merely based on Sales Tax Department information when the assessee produced invoices, bank statements, stock records, and delivery challans. The Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the alleged non-genuine purchases, if any, should be taxed.
The Delhi ITAT held that liabilities already written back and offered to tax in later years cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). The Tribunal ruled that such an addition would result in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings cannot survive when reasons recorded for reopening demonstrate non-application of mind. Following the Delhi High Court’s findings in the preceding year, the reassessment was declared invalid.
