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 issue concerned a large Schedule BP deduction disallowed under section 37. The Tribunal held that prima facie the amounts were both added and allowed in the return, warranting fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether LTCG could be taxed in a search assessment without incriminating evidence for the year. The Tribunal held that, absent such material, additions under section 153A are unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld revision since business expenses were within limited scrutiny and education cess deduction was not verified. The key takeaway is that lack of enquiry on a covered issue makes the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The assessing officer estimated commission income by assuming investments were accommodation entries. The tribunal confirmed that additions based on assumptions, without concrete evidence, are legally unsustainable.
The core issue was whether an assessment can survive when DRP directions are disregarded. The Tribunal held that failure to follow binding DRP instructions renders the assessment void ab initio.
The issue was whether declared business income can be overlooked while estimating profits after rejecting books. The Tribunal held that ignoring returned income leads to double taxation and directed its set-off.
The issue was whether the company could be asked to explain the source of shareholders funds for a pre-2013 year. The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 68 is prospective, making the addition unsustainable.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could delete a large unexplained investment without following Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that bypassing mandatory procedure invalidates the relief, and the matter must be re-examined.
The issue was whether cash found at a third party’s premises could be added in the assessee’s 153A assessment. The Tribunal held such additions invalid, ruling that proceedings must be initiated under section 153C.
The issue was reopening beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as there was no finding of failure to disclose material facts, a mandatory precondition under the proviso to section 147.
