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 ruled that registration cannot be cancelled for non-maintenance of separate books when that allegation was never put to the assessee. Authorities must specify the exact clause of specified violation relied upon.
The Tribunal found that the AO had examined land records, crop sale documents, and other evidence before making the assessment. Since due inquiry was conducted, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The ITAT ruled that customer discounts are deductible when quantified and finalised in the year of claim, even if labelled as prior-period items. The decision reinforces that timing of crystallisation outweighs book classification.
The Tribunal examined whether purchases could be treated as bogus solely on investigation inputs. It held that without independent verification or rebuttal of documentary evidence, the addition could not survive.
The tribunal held that advances received from customers for future services cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. Once the assessee proves identity, nature, and business purpose, Section 68 addition fails.
The tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without application of mind. Such invalid sanction vitiated the entire search assessment, leading to quashing of the order.
The tribunal held that salary payments, even with TDS and bank transfers, require proof of genuineness and business nexus. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of employee evidence.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
The Tribunal set aside the interest disallowance after noting that the underlying loan genuineness issue was already remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that relief based on additional evidence without obtaining a remand report breaches Rule 46A(3). The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
