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 as per section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act final assessment order is to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which directions issued by DRP is received by AO. Assessment order passed beyond the period prescribed u/s. 144C(13) is time barred and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Cochin held that disallowance of notional interest u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Income tax Act set aside since borrowed funds were used for renovation of leasehold premises and the same is allowed as revenue expense and hence interest on such borrowing is allowed as revenue expense.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the allotment of a flat to the assessee during AY 2007-08 does not attract tax under Section 56(2)(v), as the provision at that time applied only to money received, not immovable property.
ITAT Kolkata deleted the ₹1.31 lakh unexplained cash addition during demonetisation, ruling the deposit was reasonably sourced from the assessee’s disclosed rental income received in cash.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a tax order cannot be revised under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an inquiry into the matter, even if it is considered insufficient by tax authorities.
Delhi ITAT confirms that a private trust with identifiable beneficiaries is eligible for the capital gains exemption under Section 54F, similar to an individual.
ITAT Delhi directs the exclusion of the Rs. 84.95 lakh Transfer Pricing adjustment from the Book Profits (u/s 115JB), citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. that the AO cannot tamper with the net profit determined under the Companies Act, except for specified adjustments.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits during demonetization, already reflected in the assessee’s books, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Entire Rs.53.51 lakh addition was deleted, ensuring no double taxation.
ITAT Delhi Strikes Down Addition: Sale share cannot be treated as an unsecured loan (u/s 68). The tribunal deletes the Rs. 1.41 Cr addition on sale consideration receipt, remanding the s. 54F deduction claim for limited verification.
Mumbai ITAT allowed Mahindra & Mahindra’s appeal, holding that advertisement and sales promotion expenses of ₹3.26 Cr for ‘Mahindra Parts Plazas’—which were owned and operated by distributors—were revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, rejecting AO’s capitalization.
