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...
ITAT Jaipur held that claim on account of provision of future expense is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per matching principle of accountancy. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that increasing assessed income without issuing a notice under section 251 violates natural justice. The case was remanded as ex-parte enhancement beyond the original addition was found legally unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore invalidated a reassessment where the assessee was not provided the recorded reasons, emphasizing that reopening notices must be supported by clear, communicated reasons before filing returns.
The Tribunal ruled that routine replacement of plant and machinery parts does not create a new asset or enduring benefit. Such expenses were held to be revenue in nature and fully deductible.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from bank deposits is attributable to its core business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), reversing the denial by lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that while arbitrary disallowances are not sustainable, inadequate substantiation justifies estimation. Disallowances were restricted to 50% to balance fairness and compliance.
The Tribunal struck down reopening where reasons conflicted and rested solely on AIR cash-deposit data. The key takeaway is that reassessment needs a clear, reasoned nexus.
The ruling set aside a large AMP adjustment after finding that commission paid to distributors could not be recharacterized as marketing expenditure. Consistency with prior years played a decisive role in deleting the adjustment.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could alter income despite a valid APA and modified return. The Court held that without an adverse TPO audit or APA cancellation, reassessment adjustments were without jurisdiction.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
