Income Tax : Practical guide to tax audit under Section 44AB for trader assessees, covering groundwork, data analysis, compliance checks, and f...
Income Tax : Summary of the judgement About the assessee The assessee is a limited liability company engaged in the business of manufacture and...
Income Tax : Deduction of TDS and Taxability of the same; An Analysis of section 198 and 145 of Income tax 1961. As per basic understanding, th...
Income Tax : Self assessment - The assessee is required to make a self assessment and pay the tax on the basis of the returns furnished. Any ta...
Income Tax : ♦ Section 145A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ‘145A. Method of accounting in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything to the contra...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that extensive documentary evidence, audited books, supplier confirmations and banking records established the g...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under S...
Income Tax : The ITAT Raipur held that estimated gross profit addition on unrecorded sales cannot be sustained when the Assessing Officer has n...
Income Tax : Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal emphasized that detailed quantitative reconciliation and accepted export realizations carried substantial evidentiary...
Transfer of passive infrastructure (PI) assets under a court-approved scheme of demerger without consideration qualified as a gift under Section 47(iii), thereby legitimizing the claim of depreciation on such assets.
The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence of such notice renders the entire assessment void.
The issue was whether cash deposits from business sales could be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. ITAT held that recorded cash sales forming part of turnover cannot be taxed as unexplained credits.
ITAT Delhi held that approval from the PCCIT or PDGIT is mandatory, as provided u/s 35(2AB)(iv) of the Act. Since such mandatory approval of R&D facility from the PCCIT or PDGIT was not obtained by the assessee therefore, weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act cannot be allowed.
The Tribunal held that AMC services involving indeterminate acts over a defined period must follow the straight-line method under Section 43CB. The addition of ₹4.26 crore towards AMC receipts was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits recorded in regular books of account cannot be treated as unexplained investments under section 69. Since the books were not rejected and no contrary evidence was produced, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee is needs to establish the expenditure which is unreasonably high. Thus, additional evidence filed for expense pertaining to ‘shortage and quality cuts’ needs complete verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits routed through a partners personal bank account were explained as firms business receipts. Without evidence of undisclosed sources, Section 69A addition cannot be made.
The Tribunal ruled that once cash sales are recorded in books and included in declared turnover, separate addition of deposits would result in double taxation. The entire ₹4.74 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)s detailed order deleting additions based on proper verification of evidence. All grounds raised by Revenue were rejected, and cross-objection became infructuous.
