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 Delhi ITAT in Jain Textile Industries v ACIT upheld the validity of a Section 147 reopening, ruling that where specific issues like omitted interest income and capital expenditure on accessories were not examined in the original assessment, the reopening is not a mere ‘change of opinion’ and is justified, even after four years.
ITAT Delhi held that cash-in-hand reflected in audited books remains valid even if no return was filed for the prior year, deleting the entire unexplained cash addition.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that Marketing & Reservation Contributions (MRC) received by a US-based hotel brand entity from Indian franchisees are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Royalty under the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal followed the principle of judicial consistency, reiterating that these receipts were not compensation for managerial or technical services.
Assessment order was quashed because ITO who issued the Section 143(2) notice exceeded their pecuniary limits as prescribed by CBDT instructions. This decision provides a key takeaway that the jurisdiction limit set by the CBDT for assigning cases to ITOs versus higher-ranking officers is mandatory, and a breach invalidates the assessment proceedings.
The ITAT confirmed the reopening u/s 147/148 beyond the four-year limit was valid, as information from the wife’s assessment about the joint account constituted a new and tangible reason to believe income escaped. Despite upholding the reopening, the Tribunal granted significant taxpayer relief by accepting documentary evidence for property-related transactions and reducing the addition to a minimal amount.
The Pune ITAT quashed a Section 263 revision, holding that interest earned by a credit society from deposits in co-operative banks qualifies for the Section 80P deduction as part of business income. The ruling affirms that the AO’s acceptance of the claim, being a plausible view based on precedents, cannot be set aside merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
The ITAT Pune ruled that a reassessment initiated under sec.147/148, even for non-filers who later filed a return, is void ab initio if the mandatory 143(2) notice is not issued. The Tribunal set aside the cash deposit addition and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, reinforcing that 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement.
ITAT Chennai found it impermissible for the Department to levy a S 271B penalty after accepting the assessee’s income as commission business in the scrutiny assessment. The key takeaway is that the Department cannot take a divergent stand on the nature of receipts (commission vs. turnover) in penalty proceedings.
Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Rectification Can’t Rewrite Scrutiny Order — ITAT Quashes 80P Disallowance for Co-op Society; ITAT Bangalore sets aside rectification disallowing 80P deduction – delay condoned for co-operative society Assessee, a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, filed return for AY 2020-21 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) […]
ITAT Lucknow set aside a PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling it was void due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT used external adverse material (alleging shell company purchases) against the assessee without providing a chance for rebuttal or considering evidence already filed, making the order invalid.
