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 Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The Court held that once a revised return is filed, the original return stands obliterated. Ignoring the revised return was treated as a legal error, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences within 10% fall within permissible tolerance. The ruling protects genuine transactions from arbitrary additions.
The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Section 151 is jurisdictional and must be from the correct authority. The entire reassessment was quashed for non-compliance.
The case examines whether estimated expense disallowances can be made without rejecting books of account. ITAT held such additions invalid, emphasizing that Section 145(3) rejection is a prerequisite. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary disallowances.
The case addressed whether agricultural income claims can be rejected due to lack of initial evidence. ITAT held that substantial supporting documents cannot be ignored and remanded the matter for fresh verification. The ruling emphasizes fair consideration of evidence.
Addition under Section 68 could not be sustained where assessee has established the genuineness of a Non-banking financial company (NBFC) investor, and the AO failed to rebut such evidence or trace any money trail linking the assessee to the invested funds.
ITAT held that interest earned on bank deposits is taxable and not covered by the principle of mutuality. The ruling confirms that dealings with third parties break mutuality protection.
The Tribunal admitted a new legal ground and held that jurisdictional defects can be raised at any stage. It quashed the assessment as the initial notice itself was issued without authority.
