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 held that as per the MAT provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act the lower of book losses or unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against book profits. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act towards deemed dividend is vacated since loan is advanced in the preceding year. Therefore, in absence of any payment by the company in the current year, there is no justification to held that amount is received as deemed dividend.
The ITAT Delhi affirmed the grant of Section 11 exemption to a charitable society, ruling that if the Assessing Officer fails to make a mandatory reference to the DVO to question a valuation, the registered valuer’s report must be accepted. Since the purchase price was lower than the valuer’s estimate, no benefit accrued to related persons.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act made without invalidating evidences establishing identity/ creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transaction not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Dismissing the AO’s view that interest should be restricted to months of operation, Tribunal allowed full claim, reaffirming that partner interest accrues on financial year-end.
Delhi ITAT set aside income addition under Section 44AD, holding that Assessing Officer acted beyond his powers in a limited scrutiny case meant only for verifying cash deposits.
The ITAT Chennai restored a trust’s appeal to the AO to verify if the asset’s cost was allowed as application of income before disallowing depreciation under Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act.
While upholding part of addition under Section 2(22)(e), ITAT Mumbai directed Assessing Officer to restrict deemed dividend amount only to extent of accumulated profits of lending company.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, in Mahendra Prakash Pawar Vs ITO, deleted an addition of ₹21.69 lakh made under Section 69C for unexplained credit card payments. The court accepted the assessee’s explanation that cash deposits came from his brother’s transportation business for fuel purchases.
The Gujarat High Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision to disallow 25% of bogus purchases shown by Vijay Proteins Ltd., but quashed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
