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 AO changed the charge from bogus payments to 69A ‘Unaccounted Sales’ without issuing a fresh notice, denying the assessee a proper hearing. ITAT remanded the matter for verification of documentary evidence including invoices, GST returns, and e-way bills.
The Tribunal held that several comparables selected by the tax authorities failed the RPT filter and were functionally dissimilar, warranting exclusion. It ordered verification, directed inclusion of suitable event-management comparables, and remanded the interest-on-receivables and ICDS issues for fresh review.
Court set aside assessment order, holding that failure to inform Assessing Officer about DRP filing is a procedural defect that can be remedied. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration after the DRP’s decision.
The assessee’s plea that delayed PF/ESI deduction was a debatable issue was rejected because Checkmate had settled the law retrospectively. The key takeaway is that once the Supreme Court clarifies the law, CPC may apply it through 143(1)(a) adjustments based on audit disclosures.
Covers the Tribunal’s ruling upholding most TPO-selected comparables while excluding product-owning entities, clarifying how functional similarity drives benchmarking in software distribution.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
Learn the scope, time limits, and procedure for correcting mistakes apparent from records under Section 154, including appeal restrictions and rectification rules.
The Tribunal found that the addition was inferential and lacked corroborative evidence of concealment. It concluded that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.
Tribunal held that interest disallowance for non-deduction of TDS must be restricted to 30% under amended provisions. It also remanded issue of estimated interest on interest-free advances for verification.
The PCIT held the AO’s assessment under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, directing fresh verification of various deductions. The assessee argued all claims were correctly examined, questioning the jurisdiction of section 263.
