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 Lucknow ITAT ruled that a cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income if the assessees prior cash withdrawals from the bank are greater than the amount deposited. The burden shifts to the Revenue to prove the cash was used elsewhere, which they failed to do in this case.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers simply because they desire a deeper investigation, establishing that inadequate enquiry is not equivalent to no enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
After the High Court rejected the capital gains argument, the Tribunal applied Section 14 to classify the receipt from the trusteeship surrender. Since the amount did not fit into any specific head of income (Salary, Business, or Capital Gains), the ITAT ruled it must be taxed under the residuary head, Income from Other Sources.
The ITAT granted relief by ruling that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to income voluntarily disclosed during a survey if no specific unexplained cash credit or investment section (like 68 or 69) was invoked. The Tribunal held that the disclosed income remains taxable, but only at normal tax rates.
The Tribunal confirmed a co-operative banks use of a mixed accounting system (mercantile/receipt basis) for NPA interest, prioritizing consistency and adherence to RBI/NABARD prudential norms over the AOs theoretical objection. This ruling solidifies that regulatory requirements trump mechanical accounting changes.
The ITAT confirmed that even where technical jurisdiction exists (i.e., abated years), high-pitched additions must be examined on substantive merits, finding the AOs reliance on conjecture and arbitrary estimations unsustainable. This judgment serves as a strong precedent that mere jurisdiction under Section 153A doesn’t grant a license for evidence-less or double taxation.
The ITAT restored the Section 11 exemption, ruling that the Diamond Bourse’s cost-recovery activities are purely facilitative and do not constitute “trade, commerce, or business” under the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal held that genuine General Public Utility (GPU) organizations operating on a non-profit, cost-recovery basis are not affected by the amendment.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
ITAT Raipur held that since order passed by Pr. CIT u/s. 263 is quashed the addition made by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 does no more survive. Therefore, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition made by AO liable to be quashed.
