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 Delhi invalidated a reassessment under Sections 144/147, citing mechanical approval by authorities and incorrect statutory references. The ruling reinforces that higher authorities must apply proper legal mind when granting sanction under Section 151.
ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
The ITAT Mumbai remanded a ₹50 lakh addition case after finding that a business loan was omitted from audited accounts and required further verification.
Delhi High Court held that tax authorities cannot replace projected business valuations with actual results when assessing transfer pricing, emphasizing commercial prudence principle in asset transfers.
The tribunal dismissed both assessee and Revenue appeals, confirming that income from accommodation entries can be estimated at 5% of credit entries in the bank. The ruling clarifies that when commissions are claimed on transactions without actual goods delivery, a reasonable percentage can be applied to determine taxable income.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under Income from House Property. The ruling clarifies that only actual rental income or sale proceeds are taxable, protecting developers from arbitrary assessments.
Tribunal held that tax authorities erred in invoking Article 24A to deny capital gains exemption under Article 13(4A) without first satisfying preconditions of economic substance. The decision underscores that anti-abuse provisions cannot override bona fide investments made before 2017.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi condoned a delay of over 1,000 days in filing an appeal, holding that the Covid-19 period stands excluded under the Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation, allowing the assessee’s appeal to proceed.
