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...
Cochin ITAT rules that only essential expenses like plumbing and electrical works qualify for deduction under Section 54F, while luxury interiors such as modular kitchens, wardrobes, and ACs are not eligible. Partial relief granted.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that receipts for online journal access are business income, not royalty. The court held that without a Permanent Establishment, a US company’s income is not taxable in India.
PCIT’s revision order on Gajanand Financial Consultancy’s protective addition was quashed by ITAT Nagpur. The Tribunal ruled the AO made a detailed enquiry, and protective additions can’t be revised when substantive ones exist.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside a Rs.35.05 crore income addition to Keezhuparamba Service Co-operative Bank. The court remanded the matter for fresh verification, noting that the Assessing Officer mistakenly clubbed members’ deposits with share capital.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside an addition under Section 68, ruling that a taxpayer’s claim of transferring funds from a housing loan to a capital account requires further verification. The court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
Where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted international transactions at arm’s length without proposing any variation under Section 92CA(3), assessee did not qualify as an “eligible assessee” under Section 144C(15)(b).
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
ITAT Amritsar held that the statements recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used for making addition unless and an opportunity to cross examine the witness is allowed. Accordingly, addition towards bogus purchases duly restricted to 1.2%.
The ITAT Delhi allowed a Rs.1.19 crore foreign exchange loss for Donyi Polo Timbers on import creditors, affirming a consistent accounting method despite a lack of business operations.
ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT restricts an unexplained cash addition to a 10% GP rate, reducing it from ₹1.5 crore to ₹15 lakh. It upholds that stock and cash belonging to the assessee’s sons’ firm are not taxable in the assessee’s hands.
