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 Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment is invalid in as much as the approval/ sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner. Further, reasons for reopening are based on on-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal allowed.
High Court ruled that an AO’s failure to determine if a unit sale was a slump sale (S.50B) or short-term capital gain (S.50) made the assessment erroneous and reversible under Section 263.
ITAT ruled that Thane Zilla Vidyasevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on Rs. 94.12 lakh interest income earned from deposits in a co-operative bank. Tribunal affirmed that a co-operative bank is classified as a co-operative society for this deduction.
ITAT Pune held that assessee was engaged in livestock transport on commission basis and not in trading, directing AO to apply 1.5% profit rate instead of 8% estimated earlier.
ITAT restored a disallowance of ₹18.76 Cr under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194Q to CIT(A), granting assessee a fresh opportunity. Mumbai ITAT remanded a tax appeal concerning substantial business purchases, directing CIT(A) to hear assessee on merits for non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi remanded the case for re-examination of foreign remittances from Russia, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if the receipts were genuine trade receivables amid allegations of over-invoiced exports.
Tribunal held that sale proceeds of fixtures sold with a flat could not be taxed separately under income from other sources and quashed the CIT’s Section 263 order.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, setting aside revision order as invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (own capital and unsecured loans) to cover the advances given, thus breaking the presumed nexus with interest-bearing funds. This decision reinforces the principle that disallowance is impermissible when the taxpayer possesses adequate non-interest-bearing capital for making advances.
ITAT Indore held that land located beyond 8 km from nearest municipality does not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii), exempting gains from capital gains tax.
