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 : The Tribunal examined whether donations made as part of CSR obligations could qualify for deduction under Section 80G. It held tha...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleg...
Income Tax : Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under t...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessees did not constitute a valid approval under Section...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that compensation paid to terminate a land sale agreement was a business expenditure incurred for commercial reasons...
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 examined whether donations made as part of CSR obligations could qualify for deduction under Section 80G. It held that deduction cannot be denied merely because the payment was made towards CSR, subject to fulfillment of Section 80G conditions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
The ITAT held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessees did not constitute a valid approval under Section 153D. As a result, the assessment order was quashed and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that compensation paid to terminate a land sale agreement was a business expenditure incurred for commercial reasons. The amount could not be treated as part of closing stock and was allowable under Section 37.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that transfer pricing authorities cannot assign a NIL arm’s length price when the assessee has demonstrated actual receipt of intra-group services through supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 1.25 crore through bank records, PPF withdrawals, and documented fund movements. Since the transactions were verifiable through banking channels, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata found that the assessees share capital remained unchanged throughout the year and no fresh capital was received. As a result, the addition under Section 68 for alleged unexplained share capital was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that a bad debt deduction cannot be denied once the debt is validly written off in the books of account. The Tribunal ruled that proof of actual irrecoverability was not required in view of CBDT circulars and judicial precedent.
