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 : Learn the scope, time limits, and procedure for correcting mistakes apparent from records under Section 154, including appeal rest...
Income Tax : Learn about various types of income tax assessments under Sections 143, 144, and 147, their procedures, time limits, and taxpayer ...
Corporate Law : Learn to address crucial Income Tax notices like 143(1), 143(2), 148, 139(9), and 245. Timely, informed action prevents penalties,...
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 ruled that Section 50C could not apply because the DVO’s valuation ignored the impact of tenants and owner-occupied...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 be...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that matter of TP adjustment of purchase of raw materials, assembling parts and sale of goods, and interest on...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a holding company with no operating revenue could claim business expenses. The Tribunal held that making str...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that interest on fixed deposits is not taxable when earned by a State instrumentality. Since it was assessed as...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The issue was whether the entire Section 80JJAA deduction could be rejected when some employees failed the 240-day condition. The Tribunal held that only ineligible employees’ costs can be disallowed, not the whole claim.
The Tribunal examined whether agricultural land qualified as a non-capital asset and upheld taxation after finding it within the prescribed municipal distance. The ruling reiterates that physical verification and reliable evidence prevail over unsupported certificates.
The Court held that reassessment was invalid where deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was lawfully claimed by a co-operative society. It ruled that interest from co-operative banks remains deductible when the assessee is not a co-operative bank.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Tribunal held that when closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include tax components, opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis. The case was remanded to ensure consistent valuation and accurate profit computation.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The Tribunal ruled that section 220(2) interest cannot be charged where the original demand notice showed nil demand, holding that interest arises only after a valid section 156 notice.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
The Delhi High Court held that a withholding tax certificate cannot stand once the ITAT sets aside the finding of a dependent agent PE. Since the Revenue relied solely on quashed assessment orders, the 8.75% TDS was invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that expiry of 120 days under Section 132B does not trigger automatic release of seized assets. The only consequence of delay is interest liability, reaffirming that AO’s satisfaction is essential.
