Income Tax : Scrutiny assessment which is mainly governed by Section 143 of IT Act is in-depth process used by tax officers to ensure accuracy ...
Income Tax : In the alternate, assessee has also raised a ground that Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the expenditure incurred in culti...
Income Tax : Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible...
Income Tax : Understand the time limits for issuing income tax notices and completing assessments, including updates from the Finance Acts of 2...
Income Tax : Learn about rectifying mistakes in income tax orders under Section 154, including types of rectifiable orders, responsible authori...
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 Mumbai held that the internal audit memo is outside the scope and ambit of the term “information” as provided in Explanat...
Income Tax : It is settled law that the AO cannot supplant its view as to the commercial expediency of transactions in place of that of the Ass...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted as delay i...
Income Tax : A proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee as during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the A...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by AO not having valid jurisdiction is not sustain...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
We have to examine delay as excessive or inordinate based on whether there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time by the assessee and in our view when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor.
The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 03-07-2015 determining total income of Rs. 11,70,590/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings initiated and order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed on 28-032022 by accepting the returned income.
ITAT Lucknow quashes penalty u/s 271B for failure to file audit report, stating incorrect grounds for penalty initiation.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since AO has not made any independent investigation of fact. Accordingly, ad hoc disallowance @10% upheld to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”.
Held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit. Particularly in view of the excruciating fact that reduction of subsidy from written down value was accepted by the Assessing Officer and he did not tinker with the amount of depreciation claimed.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from the sale of software licenses is business income and the same cannot be taxed in India in absence of Permanent Establishment and in terms of India-Austria DTAA.
The First Appellate authority further directed the assessing authority to reopen the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2010-11 and from 2012-13 onwards to disallow the set off of the claim of unabsorbed depreciation computed from 1998-99 onwards.
The First Appellate authority further directed the assessing authority to reopen the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2010-11 and from 2012-13 onwards to disallow the set off of the claim of unabsorbed depreciation computed from 1998-99 onwards.
The First Appellate Authority, therefore, allowed the appeal of the appellant/assessee by relying on the remand report and finding that the consequential order passed by the Assessing Authority could not be legally sustained.
