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 ITAT Delhi quashed a Rs.5 lakh addition for unrecorded cash sales, ruling that WhatsApp chats are inadmissible as evidence without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision establishes that unverified electronic data cannot sustain tax additions, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the deletion of a ₹65 lakh addition under Section 68 was proper because the taxpayer established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal accepted that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels, backed by confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials.
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the interest disallowance, applying the principle of consistency because the Revenue had previously accepted the assessee’s classification of net interest income under Income from Other Sources in earlier scrutiny assessments. The court found no justification to deviate from this accepted treatment for the current year.
ITAT ruled that taxing cash deposits as unexplained credit under Section 68 when underlying sales are already accepted by AO and VAT authorities amounts to illegal double taxation. Decision confirmed that source of demonetised currency deposits was clearly traceable to regular business receipts.
The Delhi ITAT restored a reassessment appeal to the CIT(A) because evidence was rejected only for lack of a formal Rule 46A application. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence if the assessee files a proper application within a reasonable time.
The Tribunal condoned a 563-day delay in filing appeal caused by frequent changes in management and poor communication in a co-operative bank. It held that negligence of officials should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh adjudication by CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by a Singapore company from its Indian affiliate for Regional Service Agreement (RSA) support are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or the DTAA. The Tribunal held that applying expertise for managerial and administrative services on a cost-sharing basis is a service, not the transfer of know-how.
The ITAT Kolkata ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if the taxpayer did not earn any exempt income during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal fully allowed the appeal, reiterating the established legal position against mechanical disallowance when there is no dividend or tax-free income.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that the reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of the erstwhile amalgamating company were void ab initio. The Tribunal ruled that since the amalgamation was duly communicated to the Assessing Officer before the assessment, the notice issued to the non-existent entity was invalid in law.
The ITAT Pune condoned a 100-day delay in filing the tax appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the taxpayer’s reliance on professional advice and relocation. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be heard on its merits, reinforcing the principle that substantive justice prevails over procedural lapses.
