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 Ahmedabad quashed the PCIT’s Section 263 revision setting aside an assessment, holding AO’s enquiry into an Section 80GGC political donation was plausible and adequate.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional evidence demonstrating that no tax advantage accrued to assessee owing to continuous losses needs verification. Accordingly, matter of imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) remanded back.
ITAT Kolkata deletes Rs.50 lakh addition for excess stock found during survey, ruling the AO failed to point out defects or reject audited books. Assessee had already accounted for the stock and paid advance tax.
ITAT Kolkata partially allows appeal for Sukumar Solvent, slashing additions. Tribunal ruled only the 12% profit margin on excess stock is taxable and that TDS on freight is not required if PAN is provided by the transporter.
ITAT Kolkata deletes S. 270A penalty on St. Peters School for disallowed depreciation. Tribunal ruled the incorrect claim was a bona fide clerical error, not misreporting, citing the Reliance Petro and Price Water House SC judgments.
ITAT Kolkata reduces Rs.31.78 lakh addition for excess stock found during a survey. Tribunal rules that since the stock was business income, only the profit element, fixed at 12%, is taxable.
ITAT Kolkata quashes S. 271(1)(c) penalty against Baidya Nath Dey (AY 2011-12). Penalty notice invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb, a defect confirmed by the Calcutta High Court.
ITAT Kolkata allows Begpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. 80P(2)(d) deduction on Rs.28 lakh interest. Tribunal distinguished the Totgars SC ruling, holding that interest from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
ITAT Kolkata remands 80P deduction appeal of Jotesriram Samabay Society back to CIT(A). The Tribunal orders fresh consideration of Rs.89 lakh interest income, stressing need for bifurcation and compliance with the Totgars SC ruling.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Asit Kumar Dutta. The Tribunal ruled that an incorrect deduction claimed by mistake, with full disclosure, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
