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...
The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend provisions require evidence of withdrawal from a company in which the assessee is a shareholder. Since the shortage related to a proprietary concern, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that notional interest on business advances cannot be taxed without actual accrual or receipt of income. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the advances were made during the ordinary course of business.
The Chennai ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after finding that identical issues had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed its previous ruling on software service payments.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that demonetisation-related cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained money merely on suspicion when sales are properly recorded in books. The Tribunal upheld deletion of ₹2.35 crore addition due to absence of defects in evidence.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the issue of alleged unexplained investment to the Assessing Officer after observing that adequate opportunity was not granted before lower authorities. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice required fresh examination of the assessee’s records.
The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that expenditure incurred on an abandoned wind power project in the same line of business was revenue in nature since no enduring asset was created. However, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of supporting evidence.
The ITAT Nagpur held that only the gross profit embedded in unrecorded sales can be taxed and not the entire sales amount under Section 69A. The Revenue’s appeal seeking full addition was dismissed.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs. 50 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the investor company had directly responded to notices and furnished supporting documents. The Tribunal held that the identity, genuineness, and source of investment were adequately proved.
The Tribunal restored issues relating to comparable company margins and working capital adjustment after finding that the assessee’s submissions required verification. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
