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 Mumbai sends a lakh partner remuneration disallowance case back to AO for re-verification. The disallowance hinged on classifying property sale profit as capital gain.
Tribunal held that CIT(A) deleted bad debt disallowance without verifying Section 36(2) compliance. Case remanded to AO for fresh adjudication after granting assessee fair opportunity.
Agra ITAT deleted addition under Section 68, ruling that gifts from sisters (Sharad Maheshwar) were genuine. The Tribunal held the department cannot reject gifts solely because the donor’s tax return was not scrutinized.
The Tribunal sent the case back to the Assessing Officer after finding that documents proving investment sources and expenses were not examined earlier. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording hearing.
Nagpur ITAT remanded Vijay Peshane’s appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh review of addition under Section 6a9A. The assessee claimed miscommunication led to a failure to appear before the appellate authority.
The ITAT ruled that tax authorities cannot deny the S.115BAB benefit after a detailed S.143(3) scrutiny order confirms the assessee as a manufacturer. The judgment emphasizes procedural consistency, overturning the CPC and CIT(A) orders.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored a case where the CIT(A) upheld a major loss disallowance stemming from client code modification (CCM) without proper hearing. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) failed to consider that the addition was based on unsubstantiated claims from a report, directing a fresh hearing to examine evidence of genuine trading.
ITAT Rajkot confirmed that for a small trader opting for Section 44AD, the presumptive income covers the cash deposits related to the business cycle, making any separate addition for unexplained money (Section 69A) unjustifiable. The entire addition was deleted as the tax authorities acted on mere suspicion without bringing any contrary evidence to disprove the business nature of the deposits.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the revisionary order, finding the PCITs basis—that no supporting documents for the share LTCG were on record—was factually incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the AO had taken a plausible view after due inquiry, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to substitute his own view for the AOs.
Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of 71.12 lakh, holding that the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits by correlating them with prior cash withdrawals recorded in the books. The ruling emphasizes that S. 69A (unexplained money) cannot be invoked when the source of deposits is traced to funds from bank accounts already part of the regular books.
