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 upheld rejection of books under Section 145(3) due to incomplete records but reduced estimated net profit from 8% to 2%. Historical profit trends guided a fairer assessment.
Mumbai ITAT permits deduction under Section 57(iii) for ₹30.90 lakh interest paid on housing loan deployed to earn interest income. The ruling confirms that loan purpose, not its label, determines eligibility.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, upholding judicial precedents and deleting Rs. 6.66 crore addition, emphasizing that hypothetical income cannot be taxed.
ITAT Delhi held that a single Section 153D approval for multiple assessees and years is impermissible, rendering all 153A and 153C assessments void ab initio.
ITAT Bangalore allowed deduction of ₹55.4 crore ESOP expenses under section 37, holding it as employee compensation cost. ESOP costs may be deductible even if cross-charged from parent company.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovering more than 20% of a disputed tax demand from other refunds while an appeal is pending is impermissible. The ruling directs the Income Tax authorities to refund the excess amount.
The Tribunal emphasized that for notices issued before 01.04.2021, the sanctioning power rested solely with the JCIT, making the PCIT’s approval invalid. Consequently, the ₹82.89 crore disallowance and all further proceedings were set aside.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
ITAT ruled that a scrutiny order cannot override a 143(1) intimation if the AO fails to examine pending 154 grievances. The case was remanded because the core adjustments were never adjudicated.
The Tribunal ruled that the entity did not qualify as an educational institution or as substantially government-financed, leading to denial of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption. The dispute over taxing gross receipts was remanded for a fresh decision. Key takeaway: fund management alone cannot justify exemption.
