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 set aside the order as the CIT(A) failed to examine judicial precedents cited by the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
Tribunal ruled that share transactions cannot be treated as loans without proof of exceptional circumstances. Notional interest addition on such re-characterisation was deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling that failure to produce bills, vouchers, and stock records justified estimation.
The issue was whether repayment of loans through banking channels proves genuineness under Section 68. ITAT Delhi held it does not, ruling that bogus loans remain unexplained even if repaid.
The case involved denial of remaining depreciation where machinery was used for a short period. The Court held that balance depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year to ensure parity.
The Tribunal held that subscription to preference shares cannot be re-characterized as loans in absence of evidence showing sham transactions. Notional interest addition was deleted.
The case involved addition of share sale proceeds treated as bogus based on investigation reports. The Tribunal held that no direct evidence linked the assessee to manipulation. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and demat channels cannot be disregarded without proof.
The case involved reopening of assessment based on issues already examined during scrutiny. The Court held that reassessment without new material is invalid. It ruled that reopening on the same facts amounts to impermissible action.
