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...
Evidence demonstrated frequent withdrawals and redeposits across years, confirming the legitimacy of the cash held. The Tribunal ruled that the deposits were fully explained, warranting removal of the Section 69A/115BBE addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
Cane Deveopment Council Rohana Kalan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Four appeals filed by two assessees were heard together due to similarity in facts, with one matter treated as the lead case. The assessee challenged the penalty […]
ITAT Jaipur held that the amount paid before due date of filing the return of income is not supposed to be disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act even though the same was outstanding at the year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify the said aspect and pass appropriate order.
ITAT Pune deletes Rs.17.90L addition u/s 68 as LLP proved genuineness, identity & repayment of unsecured loans; appeal allowed in full.
Additions based on decoded entries from a third-party cash book were struck down, as they did not align with the assessee’s audited books or bank statements, reinforcing the ‘dumb document’ principle.
The ITAT held that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive once the underlying quantum addition is deleted by a binding ITAT order. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no stay or direction from the High Court could revive the deleted quantum.
The Court held that Section 270A cannot be invoked when assessed income matches the returned income, and an excessive FTC claim alone does not constitute under-reporting. Key takeaway: Penalty requires statutory pre-conditions to be satisfied, not mere disagreement on a claim.
Tribunal holds that working capital impact must be examined by the TPO when comparables are selected by the Department. If adjustment is granted, no separate interest addition is warranted.
The Tribunal ruled that interest could not be disallowed when ample interest-free funds existed and no link was shown between overdraft borrowings and partners’ drawings. The key takeaway is that presumption of utilisation of own funds applies when mixed funds are available.
