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...
The ITAT Surat remanded a case involving a Rs.30 lakh gift treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to submit bank records and explain the source of the gift.
The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactions are functionally similar. The decision emphasized consistency and the lack of separate benchmarking by the TPO.
Court held that there was no direct or indirect connection between the assessee and the handwritten inquiry register relied upon by the department. Statements recorded during search proceedings also did not mention the assessee.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should reconsider the matter after the jurisdictional High Court decides pending cases concerning alleged bogus purchase bills by rice millers.
Tribunal ruled that once DSIR certifies R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB), the Assessing Officer cannot disregard the claim without following the statutory procedure. The decision reinforces the importance of DSIR certification in weighted deduction disputes.
The Delhi ITAT held that advertisement and marketing expenses could not be treated as an international transaction without evidence of an arrangement with the associated enterprise. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and rejected the application of the Bright Line Test.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) after considering replies and documents furnished later by the assessee.
The Delhi ITAT held that informal WhatsApp conversations without corroborative evidence cannot establish unexplained investment under Section 69A. Since no excess jewellery, invoices, or payment proof were found, the addition was deleted.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation under Section 11(2) should be condoned where genuine hardship exists. The Court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach to protect charitable exemption claims.
