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 Mumbai held that the material/information on which AO have re-opened the assessment is no longer existing being legally incorrect. Hence, action of AO to have issued notice of re-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act itself fails.
Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order regarding Smt. Nidhi Agarwal’s appeal delay and the denial of condonation due to inadequate explanation.
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 unsustainable as department failed to establish that assessee was involved in price manipulation even after purchasing and selling the shares on the stock exchange through SEBI registered stock.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the same issue/ claim which was already decided and accepted during the course of regular assessment, without bringing any new material facts on records, is not valid as per law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act alleging non-completion of some blocks unjustified as separate building planning permission were obtained by assessee from Local Authority namely AMC for each Block as a separate housing project.
ITAT Delhi held that assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without new tangible material is unsustainable and hence the entire reassessment is null and void.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards difference of share premium u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act by rejecting the valuation determined by the assessee without referring the matter for valuation to DVO is unjustified. Matter remanded for referring the same to DVO.
ITAT Delhi held that salary income not taxable in India both u/s. 9(1) as services are rendered outside India and also not taxable under Article 15(1) of India-Netherland DTAA as required conditions satisfied.
ITAT Delhi held that once long term capital gain along with cost of acquisition and indexation accepted in the hands of one of the co-owner of the property, the same needs to be allowed/ accepted for other co-owner of the property too.
