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 revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since related-party expenses were accepted without detailed verification. Accordingly, revision is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that failure to issue a jurisdictional transfer order under Section 127 invalidates the assessment. It ruled that absence of such order renders proceedings void ab initio, irrespective of merits.
The judgment confirms that income from offshore equipment supply is not taxable where transactions occur outside India. The liaison office was also held not to create a taxable presence. The case highlights limits of tax jurisdiction over cross-border supplies.
The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)s decision to allow a new claim under Section 10A, noting that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and aimed at determining correct tax liability.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid. It ruled that such a defect makes the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a claim admitted at the appellate stage must be examined on merits and cannot be denied merely due to time lapse. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of expense disallowance after finding that occupation charges were settled during the relevant year. It ruled that such crystallized liabilities are allowable under Section 37(1), dismissing the Revenue’s objections.
The Tribunal held that receipts from sponsorship and royalty were incidental to the promotion of sports. It ruled that absence of profit motive prevented application of the proviso to section 2(15), allowing exemption under sections 11 and 12.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
