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 Bangalore directed the AO to allow the full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a primary cooperative credit society, holding that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mavilayi confirms that these societies are not excluded by Section 80P(4). The Tribunal confirmed the society’s income was derived solely from transactions with its members.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
The ITAT Kolkata condoned a massive 2581-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the taxpayer’s claim of being unaware of the CIT(A)’s order as a reasonable cause. The case was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000 cost.
The ITAT Agra dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of a ₹2.35 crore unexplained cash credit under Section 68, agreeing that the amount was a closing balance from prior, assessed years. The ruling established that the taxpayer’s savings and financial reconciliation, supported by earlier ITRs, were sufficient evidence against the addition.
ITAT Mumbai fully deleted Rs.7.23 crore in additions made under Sections 69A, 69B, and 69C following a search. The Tribunal ruled that the black diary entries, initially treated as unexplained expenditure, money, and investment, were actually reconciled with the audited ledgers of the LLP, rendering the AO inference as mere conjecture.
The Tribunal found that additions made purely on estimated profit percentages cannot attract concealment penalty. Since no specific inaccuracy or suppression was proven, ITAT deleted the penalty in full. The ruling aligns with precedents from Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat High Courts.
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment towards bandwidth service without transfer of right to use equipment or process could not be characterized as ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of India-UAE DTAA. Thus, appeal decided in favour of assessee.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that assessee is barred from raising objection regarding jurisdiction after one month of service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ITAT absolutely justified in not entertaining jurisdictional question.
ITAT Delhi held that no addition can be made u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act without there being any incriminating material relating to unabated assessment year. Therefore, additions made in the assessment order is deleted and appeal is partly allowed.
