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 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 : ITAT Delhi held that interest and dividend earned from co-operative banks qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Totgar's ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
Mumbai ITAT held that income from house property can be assessed only in the hands of an owner or deemed owner under the Income-tax Act. Since ownership of the land and building remained with MSRTC, lease receipts could not be taxed under the house property head.
The Tribunal deleted a ₹96.23 crore disallowance after finding that the liabilities crystallised during the relevant assessment year. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the liabilities had arisen and become ascertainable in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice must clearly state the specific limb of Section 270A being invoked. Absence of such specification was held fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that generalized investigation reports cannot substitute for concrete evidence against an assessee. Since the transactions were supported by documents and no direct evidence of undisclosed income existed, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer relied on factually incorrect assumptions regarding the filing of return and property purchase. The reopening was therefore quashed as unsustainable in law.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 6% of alleged bogus purchases, holding that similar issues involving the same accommodation entry group had already been decided in earlier cases.
The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a 43-day delay in filing. ITAT held that medical records substantiated the assessee’s health issues and restored the appeal for decision on merits.
ITAT Mumbai condoned a 524-day delay in filing an appeal after finding that the assessee remained unaware of the assessment order due to communications being routed through his tax consultant. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.
ITAT remanded the issue of applying DTAA rates to dividends paid to non-resident shareholders because crucial documents such as TRCs and related records were not available on record.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital losses can be carried forward even when long-term capital gains are exempt under the India–Mauritius DTAA. Exempt gains do not enter the computation of total income and therefore cannot absorb the losses.
