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 a private limited company registered as a non-banking finance company (NBFC) with the RBI, engaged in providing loans, advances, and dealing in shares and securities.
The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of cash deposit during the demonetization. During assessment, AO noted that assessee have made cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- in his bank account.
Assessee was engaged in the business of slimming and beauty services. During assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee was carrying substantial credit balances as current liabilities under the head ‘Advance from customers’.
ITAT Jaipur allowed Naval Kishore’s appeal, ruling that no additions could be made under Section 153A, as no incriminating material was found during the search.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan sustained as creditworthiness of the lender not proved. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee dismissed.
Once CESTAT had given a findings that the purchases in question were not bogus, then, additions proposed to be made on the basis of show-cause notice from Central Excise Directorate had no basis which the same could be sustained.
Section 36(1)(vii) of ITA applied separately to non-rural debts, while Section 36(1)(viia) of the tax statute only applied to rural debts, making it clear that banks were entitled to claim both deductions, provided they pertained to different types of advances.
ITAT Delhi held that error of bringing an amount of Rs.12,10,692/- to tax instead of the undisclosed amount of Rs.27,00,00,000/- is assessment made without proper enquiry and hence assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue so revision order u/s. 263 sustained.
Held that reserve arising out of amalgamation is capital in nature and cannot be treated as revenue under the ambit of section 28(iv) of the Act. CIT (A) is correct in holding that capital reserve cannot be treated as an Income u/s 28(iv) of the Act.
ITAT Jaipur addresses tax rate dispute in Sadhwani Wood Products Pvt Ltd case, involving unaccounted cash sales and Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
