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 allowed Section 80P deduction on bank interest after finding no binding jurisdictional ruling and applying the principle that the favorable view must prevail. The key takeaway is that surplus deposit interest qualifies for deduction in such circumstances.
Tribunal deleted protective additions after finding no corresponding substantive assessment. The ruling clarifies that protective action cannot stand alone under Sections 147/143(3).
Tribunal upheld disallowance of Section 54F exemption after the assessee failed to prove ownership of the residential property. The ruling confirms that deduction requires clear evidence of title.
ITAT examined Revenue’s protective addition based on alleged beneficial ownership of foreign accounts. It upheld deletion after noting unresolved ownership and procedural gaps, emphasizing that protective additions require clear foundational evidence.
Tribunal allowed Section 80P deduction for interest on surplus bank deposits, emphasizing that in absence of binding jurisdictional guidance, the assessee-favorable view applies.
The ITAT confirmed an addition of Rs. 28 lakh under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits made over four years. Burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to explain deposits.
The decision highlights that additions under Section 153C cannot stand when based only on third-party statements without seized material linking the assessee. The ruling stresses the need for concrete evidence before treating purchases as non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
