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...
Kolkata ITAT ruled in DCIT vs. Jupiter International that a ₹6.7 crore addition in an unabated tax year was illegal. Jurisdiction under Section 153A fails without seized, incriminating material, per SC precedent.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
The ITAT Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling against additions for ICDS adjustments, provision reversals (including liquidated damages and project costs), and Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The Tribunal held that subsequent reversal of provisions cannot be taxed again if the original provision was disallowed in earlier years, thereby preventing double taxation and upholding consistent accounting treatment.
In a key ruling, ITAT Hyderabad restored an appeal that the CIT(A) had dismissed for non-prosecution, as the NFAC was found to have incorrectly used an email address other than the one specified by the assessee in Form 35. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Courts mandate for a liberal approach to condoning the resulting 98-day delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT without considering submissions filed by the assessee amounts to non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter is remitted back to PCIT to consider the submissions and pass a speaking order.
The ITAT set aside the entire reassessment, holding that a valid notice is a mandatory jurisdictional step, citing the Supreme Court’s Hotel Blue Moon ruling. Since the two notices issued were defective (one premature, the other beyond the statutory time limit), the assessment was deemed illegal.
Mumbai ITAT affirmed the deletion of a ₹2.74 crore F&O loss addition under Section 153A for an unabated year. The addition, based only on the post-search “Project Falcon” report, was void as no incriminating material was found during the search itself, following the Supreme Court’s mandate.
The ITAT set aside the crore addition, ruling that lower authorities acted mechanically by rejecting detailed evidence like invoices, bank statements, and vendor confirmations. The Tribunal mandated a remand, emphasizing that suspicion is not a valid basis for disallowance when substantial documentary proof is on record.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment order as void because the final assessment was completed by an Income Tax Officer (Ward-2) who lacked jurisdiction, while the proceedings were initiated by another officer (Ward-3). The Tribunal, citing the Allahabad High Court, ruled that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by participation.
he ITAT restricted a S.69A addition on ₹1 crore cash deposits, ruling that treating the entire gross receipt as unexplained income was unjustified for a commission agent. Considering the low-margin onion trading business and past assessments, the Tribunal estimated 4% of the deposits as the correct taxable commission income.
