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 Cuttack held that AO wrongly allowed the set off of brought forward loss and accordingly order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that it is proved that assessee doesn’t have any permanent establishment in India, during the year under consideration, accordingly, receipts classifiable as business income cannot be taxed in India.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash credit in current year untenable since loan is received back in subsequent year and the same is accepted by the department. Accordingly, addition deleted.
The failure of assessee to make the requisite disclosures in Schedule D would neither detract from the relief which had been accorded by AO nor change the factum of carry forward and set off as forming part of the assessment order.
Merely relying on the statement of a third party without any corroborating evidence could not justify income tax additions. In the absence of incriminating material found during a search, AO could not enhance the taxable income in proceedings under section 153A.
Delhi High Court held that CIT has rightly held that assessment order was passed without making necessary inquiries and verification hence in terms of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263, the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
As per AO, Shri Birat Chandra Dagara was one of the partner of the assessee firm and had owned the mining lease and submitted the details as per which the assessee was found indulged in the illegal production of iron ore.
Rajasthan High Court held that share of the employee in the provident fund deducted by the employer, has to be deposited as per the due date fixed by the EPF Act and ESI Act concerned and not as per Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
Further, revenue also contested that whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the excise duty refund of Rs 1,63,15,661/- as capital receipt, which were earlier treated as revenue receipt, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
