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 held that the condition of make available was not satisfied for services when provided by assessee did not enabled the AEs to apply the technology independently. Thus, technical service provided to AEs not taxable.
ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information from NFAC and NFAC failed to examine the nature of transaction and passed order in perfunctory manner.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.
ITAT Pune held that the DTAA does not get triggered at all when a domestic company pays DDT u/s. 115O of the Income Tax Act. In nut-shell, domestic company doesn’t enter domain of DTAA at all.
ITAT Delhi rules against Instronics Limited’s bad debt claim, asserting NBFC loan was merely fund transfer, upholding Rs. 53.11 lakh disallowance.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit, being bogus unsecured loan, and u/s. 69C on account of unexplained expenditure, being bogus interest claimed, unjustified as repayment of loans in subsequent year accepted.
ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act unwarranted as reasonable cause shown for accepting the cash on account of sale of immovable property.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of revisionary order by PCIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is liable to be set aside.
Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficient evidence to support claims of cost incurred for improvement of property.
ITAT Jaipur condoned delay of 108 days in filing of an appeal, however, imposed cost of Rs. 8,000/- to be deposited in ‘Prime Minister Relief Fund’ (PMRF) as the appellant was not diligent enough to timely file an appeal.
