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 High Court held that granting less than seven days to reply to a show-cause notice violates mandatory SOPs. Such a breach vitiates the entire faceless assessment process.
The ITAT held that Rule 8D cannot be invoked without first recording a clear dissatisfaction with the assessee’s working based on accounts. Mechanical application of the rule, without identifying specific expenditure linked to exempt income, was ruled invalid.
The ITAT noted that cash-flow statements showing withdrawal–redeposit nexus were not examined. Non-consideration of material evidence warranted remand.
The ITAT held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is invalid. Such a defect strikes at the root of the assessment and cannot be cured.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the same survey material which was already accepted by AO in earlier proceedings is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that operational suspension and status quo directions do not permit nil valuation of stock. Proper valuation is mandatory under the mercantile system.
The tribunal held that internal brand, communication, and technology support under a shared services framework does not involve transfer of copyright or know-how. As a result, such payments are not royalty and attract no TDS under section 195.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT observed that non-deliberate delay caused by administrative difficulties should not bar access to justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the appeal was revived for merit-based adjudication.
