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 Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The Madras High Court held that companies could not file manual income-tax returns after e-filing became mandatory from May 14, 2007. A manual return filed for AY 2008–09 was held legally invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied retrospectively for demonetisation-period transactions. As the tax effect at normal rates fell below the monetary limit, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that inventory figures from a management Excel sheet, without quantity details or physical verification, cannot form the basis of an addition. Properly recorded GST-compliant sales explained the variance.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
Holding that justice requires a reasoned order after hearing both sides, the Tribunal remanded the appeals. Continued non-cooperation may still permit ex parte disposal.
The decision reiterates that section 150 is subject to section 150(2) and cannot revive time-barred or jurisdictionally invalid assessments. Directions to reopen were struck down as unlawful.
The Tribunal held that running coaching classes for substantial fees does not qualify as charitable education. In the absence of evidence of free or subsidized services, exemption under section 11 was rightly denied.
Proposed adjustments against stayed demands were held impermissible. The Court ruled that such actions cannot defeat the assessee’s right to timely refund with interest.
The case concerned denial of deduction citing dealings with associate members. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court precedent and directed the AO to verify member status and society bye-laws before deciding eligibility.
