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 Delhi removes addition of ₹2.9 Cr by AO in property transaction under Section 69A. CIT(A) accepts purchase and sale documents. Read the full judgment.
PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263 was unjustified if PCIT failed to demonstrate how the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue
The difference in the fair market value and the issue price of compulsory convertible preference shares was only 0.65%, therefore as per Rule 11UA issue price was deemed to be fair market value and hence no scope for addition required to be made u/s. 56(2)(viib).
ITAT Delhi held that issue relating to allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee is debatable and it is well settled law that rectification provision u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the issue is debatable.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that attachment of account like Cash Credit or Overdraft by exercising powers conferred under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act untenable as bank doesn’t become a debtor.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A on account of income from undisclosed source sustained in assessee deliberately failed to produce all the books of accounts and no material evidence furnished by the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad quashed the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act as intraday profit is less than limitation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act.
Rajasthan High Court dismisses CIT appeal against Satish Kumar Agarwal. Appeal non-maintainable due to CBDT Circular 9 of 2024. Tax dispute involved Section 54B & 50C.
In view of this, tax officer did not allow the offset of LTCL against LTCG and the carry forward. CIT (A) overturned tax officer’s decision, stating that the transactions were part of legitimate tax planning and that the method of sale was a commercial consideration.
After taking cognisance of the reply of the assessee, PCIT held that AO has not applied his mind in respect of the amended provisions of Section 14A and, therefore, the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and is erroneous.
