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...
In my view, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the statutory authority was bound to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner through video conferencing as mentioned above. The result of this infraction would be that the impugned orders will have to be set aside.
Re-assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 29.06.2019 and the deduction of Rs.24,48,040/- claimed u/s 80P in respect of interest income from The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. was disallowed by the AO.
The CIT(A) has also not given any independent finding after verifying that whether there is an actual syncronised trading between the assessee and that of company scrip i.e. M/s. Radhe Developers Ltd.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that CPC wrongly processed return by considering due date as 5th August instead of 31st October. Accordingly, interest charged under section 234A of the Income Tax Act deleted and interest charged under section 234B altered.
ITAT Bangalore held that when the reasons supplied to the assessee and the reasons supplied before higher forum is not verbatim same, it cannot sustain the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The controversy in the present appeal relates to inclusion of an entity named E4e Healthcare Business Services Private Limited, as a comparable entity for benchmarking the international transaction of provision of IT-enabled services.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
ITAT Mumbai held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount while computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be included. Thus, issue decided in favour of assessee.
