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 ITAT held that earning significant exempt dividend income necessarily involves indirect administrative expenses. In the absence of separate books, the AO rightly applied Rule 8D to compute disallowance.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when exempt dividend arises incidentally from shares held as stock-in-trade in banking business. Applying Supreme Court precedents, it deleted the entire sustained disallowance, reaffirming that such income does not trigger Section 14A.
ITAT remanded a ₹2.90 crore s.54F deduction case, allowing the assessee to furnish complete documentation and have the claim re-examined on merit.
ITAT acknowledged that ECB interest was fixed and consistently accepted in earlier years but adopted a marginally revised rate after the assessee’s voluntary settlement to close the dispute.
The issue concerned excess interest deduction claimed by inflating EBITDA through Ind-AS fair-value adjustments. ITAT held that the AO made no enquiry on this critical computation, making the assessment erroneous.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that revision is impermissible when the Assessing Officer adopts a reasonable view after due enquiry. Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT prefers another line of investigation.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that once expenditure is shown to be wholly and exclusively for business, section 37(1) disallowance cannot survive. Suspicion cannot override documentary and commercial reality.
Telangana High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021 without following provisions of section 144B i.e. assessment being carried out in faceless manner is not justifiable. Accordingly, orders are quashed and appeals are allowed.
Patna High Court held that ITAT was not justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) without demonstrating any perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard by the appellate authority. Accordingly, deletion of addition u/s. 68 by CIT(A) justified and writ allowed.
The Tribunal held that pension paid by the US government is taxable only in the United States under the India–USA DTAA. The key takeaway is that beneficial treaty provisions prevail over Indian tax law.
