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 found that subscription payments were made for using copyrighted articles, not for using copyright itself. Hence, the income was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA with the USA.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the AO failed to record any allegation of the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reaffirms that reopening beyond four years requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 147.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since AO took one of the possible views while allowing claim of deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for non-furnishing of Form 3CL did not preclude normal deduction u/s 35(1)(i) and depreciation u/s 32, as the research was related to the assessee’s business.
Delhi High Court directed payment of ₹ 36.85 lakh plus interest after Income-Tax Department delayed acting on ITAT order on indexation for inherited asset of AY 2016-17.
The ITAT Mumbai held that income already taxed in the hands of a trust cannot be taxed again in the hands of its beneficiary, deleting an addition of ₹1.24 crore.
Delhi High Court set aside notice under Sections 148A(3) & 148 when petitioner’s objections and documents were not considered before reopening for AY 2019-20.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries before allowing ESOP expenditure, invalidating the PCIT’s revision under section 263.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
Revenue from film distribution was specifically excluded from the definition of “royalty” under both the Act and the India-USA DTAA and interest earned on income tax refund was not effectively connected with any permanent establishment in India and should be taxed at 15% as per Article 11(2) of the India-US DTAA.
