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...
Delhi ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) after finding that additional evidence was accepted without allowing AO to respond. Procedural safeguards under Rule 46A are essential, even for official records.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for cash deposits from painting sales, ancestral jewellery, and customary gifts. Revenue failed to challenge the well-supported factual findings.
ITAT held that the obligation to receive cash was rooted in an agreement executed before the 2015 amendment to Section 269SS. Since reasonable cause existed, penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that detailed stock, sales, VAT, and bank records satisfactorily explained cash deposits of ₹2.07 crore, overturning additions made by AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal ruled that the disallowance of interest on the ground of mixed-funds usage could not be sustained without allowing the AO to verify supporting documents. The matter was remitted to ensure a fresh and fair assessment in accordance with law.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) passed beyond statutory time limits is invalid. The ruling reinforces that the outer limit under section 153 cannot be extended, emphasizing strict compliance with limitation provisions.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 292-day delay in filing an appeal due to the assessee’s age, dependence, and overseas travel. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication of capital gains, ensuring fair opportunity and justice.
ITAT Pune ruled that the Maharashtra PSI-2007 subsidy of ₹37.85 crore is a capital receipt. The order reversed CIT(A) and AO’s revenue treatment, protecting the assessee from taxation.
The ITAT held that income appearing in Form 26AS cannot be taxed unless actually received when the assessee follows cash accounting. The ruling confirms that 26AS entries alone cannot justify additions.
The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee could not prove the creditor’s identity, financial capacity, or the genuineness of the ₹50 lakh credit. Defective confirmation, NIL income of the creditor, and absence of source details weighed against the assessee. The ruling emphasizes that Section 68 requires clear, credible evidence.
