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 Tribunal ruled that duty drawback income recognized on cash receipt basis cannot be taxed on accrual, as consistent accounting practice caused no revenue loss.
This case examines whether the PCIT could revise an assessment under section 263 when the AO allowed interest income deduction under section 80P. The ITAT ruled that the AO’s order was a plausible view, and both conditions for invoking section 263 were not met.
Enhancement of cash deposits by CIT(A) was set aside due to lack of proper hearing. ITAT remitted the case for fresh adjudication, safeguarding the assessee’s opportunity to explain transactions.
Transportation and sub-contract expenses were disallowed as the supporting MOU predated the JV formation. The court upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, noting no contractual or statutory basis for the claim. This highlights the importance of valid agreements for claiming business deductions.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Rs. 17.93 crore disallowance since the assessee earned no exempt income during the year. It applied binding High Court rulings holding that Section 14A cannot operate without exempt income. The decision confirms that the 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective.
The Tribunal held that reassessment after four years requires PCIT approval, not Additional CIT. The invalid sanction led to quashing of the Section 148 notice and dismissal of Revenue’s appeal.
The ITAT held that an assessee’s procedural lapses cannot override statutory entitlement to deductions under section 10A. The AO must verify substantive conditions, including STPI registration and export realization, before rejecting a claim.
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of multiple residences does not disqualify a taxpayer from Section 54F benefits. It upheld the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the deduction and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on contrary precedent.
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
