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 reopening under Section 148 on an incorrect PAN and with mechanical sanction by PCIT is invalid, quashing the Rs. 3.50 crore addition under Section 68 and setting aside reassessment proceedings.
ITAT quashes DCIT’s 153C assessments for Piyush Bongirwar, holding that a single diary page pertaining only to AY 2013-14 cannot justify assessment for later years without specific incriminating material.
ITAT Delhi deletes AO’s ad hoc 50% expense disallowance and excess vessel cost addition for JITF Waterways. Upholds CIT(A)’s reliance on S43(1) Expl. (6) for asset cost.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside PCIT’s order, holding that AO’s acceptance of Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure after inquiry is a plausible view, immunizing it from Section 263 revision.
Mumbai ITAT sets aside CIT(A) remand for LTIMindtree; holds AO’s S144 mention was clerical, assessment was S143(3). Directs CIT(A) to decide TP issue on merits.
ITAT Mumbai rules Avana Global’s freight and inland haulage income is exempt under Article 8 of the India-UAE DTAA, rejecting the S44B tax stand and following High Court precedent.
ITAT Mumbai quashes PCIT’s S. 263 revision against Colgate Palmolive, holding PCIT cannot disregard binding Coordinate Bench order based merely on Supreme Court appeal pendency.
Assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation because it was not served within the prescribed time. AO countered this, claiming the order was dispatched via speed post on December 30, 2017, and had thus left the office within the deadline.
Delhi High Court held that addition of demonetization cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit rightly deleted by CIT(A) since source of deposit duly explained with documentary evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
High Court held that the Revenue itself had accepted the provision in earlier years and not disputed it even before the jurisdictional High Court in appeal for AY 2009-10. Since the provision was scientific and actually discharged, no substantial question of law arose.
