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 Mumbai quashes income tax assessment for AY 2017-18 due to lack of higher authority approval under Section 151 for reopening beyond three years.
ITAT Ahmedabad excused non-compliance due to CA’s failure, remanding the case for verification of additional evidence related to cash deposits and investments.
ITAT Delhi remands JCB India Ltd.’s ₹166.09 crore TP adjustment for non-UK royalty payments to TPO for fresh consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest expense by treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act needs re-verification. Accordingly, matter send back to the file of jurisdictional AO.
TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustments of INR 1,03,26,939/-. According to TPO, appellant had advance funds to its AE [i.e. Golden Harvest Middle East (FZC)] under the grab of share application money and there was inordinate delay in allotment of shares.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the TP assessment carried out by the TPO proceeded on the basis of incorrect appreciation of nature of services availed by the assessee from its AE. Thus, issue of determination of ALP of transactions with AE restored back to TPO.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the issue of reopening was examined in the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the reason framed under wrong facts are not valid reason, therefore such reasons to believe cannot be sustained. Thus, reopening of assessment quashed.
ITAT Mumbai restores Ivan Santosh Fernandes’ appeal, citing Covid-based extension, for reassessment on AY 2012-13. Penalty appeal also directed for fresh review.
Delhi High Court held that the assessment of tax under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is a self-assessment and in a strict sense cannot be stated as assessment framed by the AO for the purpose of reopening of assessment under section 147.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act without adequate inquire. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 rightly invoked as order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
