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 Tribunal held that assessments based on survey and requisition material are invalid when such material is not furnished to the assessee. All quantum additions were remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained merely on investigation wing inputs. It held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved with documents, additions under Section 68 cannot survive.
The issue was whether income of a predecessor company for years before amalgamation can be reassessed in the hands of the successor. ITAT held that such clubbing is impermissible and the reassessment itself is void.
Where capital subsidy was not received in the relevant year and no addition followed, reopening lacked basis. Mechanical reliance on audit objections was held unlawful.
The issue was whether a seized loose paper alone can justify an on-money addition under section 69. ITAT held that without independent corroboration, such addition cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal examined whether a single, consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years meets the requirement of Section 153C. It held that such consolidated recording vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the search assessments void.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the show cause notice fails to specify the exact charge. ITAT held that a vague notice violates law, making the entire penalty unsustainable.
The issue was whether six years of search assessments could stand when the first appeal was dismissed ex-parte. ITAT held that denial of meaningful hearing violates natural justice and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The case addressed the legality of assessments framed pursuant to a search when the satisfaction note lacked statutory particulars. The Tribunal quashed all assessments, holding them non-est in law due to invalid satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on a specific appellate direction is legally valid under section 150(1). The key takeaway is that such directions must be challenged separately and cannot be questioned collaterally in reassessment proceedings.
