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...
Bombay High Court held that revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer had already conducted enquiries and accepted a plausible view. Mere dissatisfaction with the depth of enquiry does not render the assessment order erroneous.
ITAT Kolkata held that entire bogus purchases must be added under Section 69C where the supplier was proved to be a paper entity and no evidence of actual delivery of goods existed. The ruling reiterates that bank payments and invoices alone cannot establish genuineness.
DCIT Vs Shikha Indrakumar Agrawal (ITAT Nagpur) The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions made under Sections 68 and 69C in respect of long-term capital gains claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) on sale of listed shares. The assessee had purchased 24,000 shares of […]
The Tribunal held that unrecovered advances made in the ordinary course of business can be allowed as business loss, even if they do not qualify as bad debts under section 36.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished agricultural sale bills, revenue records, and bank details supporting the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, only a partial addition was sustained.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT order restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of 100%. The Court held that only the income component embedded in disputed transactions could be taxed.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
The Tribunal held that full disallowance of purchases was not justified where corresponding sales and quantitative stock records were accepted. ITAT sustained only estimated disallowance at 12.5% of disputed purchases.
ITAT Rajkot held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approving authority merely stated Yes, I am satisfied without independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated Section 151 approval as a mandatory procedural safeguard.
ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not substitute the fair market value of shares without specifically rejecting the assessee’s DCF valuation report. The Tribunal deleted the Rs.4.14 crore addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
