Income Tax : The article explains remedies available after adverse tax orders under scrutiny and reassessment. The key takeaway is that choosin...
Income Tax : The Court clarified that mere pendency of information exchange requests under DTAA cannot justify continuing a Look Out Circular. ...
Income Tax : A surge in Section 143(2) notices was triggered by the June 2025 limitation deadline. This explains why cases were picked and how ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. S...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
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 : Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually ex...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capi...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making a 10% purchase disallowance. The addition was deleted as it was based only on assumptions derived from portal data.
ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capital gains purposes. It therefore directed taxation in AY 2018-19 and allowed the Section 54 claim.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and bank records. The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot be sustained merely on suspicion.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding supporting invoices, confirmations, and banking records on record.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of account. It rejected the Revenue’s view that NPAs classified earlier must necessarily be written off in those earlier years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delivery-based share transactions shown as investments in books could not be treated as business income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld capital gains treatment for both STCG and LTCG.
