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...
Assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on the basis that the long-term capital gain earned from the transfer of tenancy/possessory rights was invested for the purchase of a residential flat.
Delhi High Court held that in absence of transfer of title or sale of property, no incidence of tax can be invoked. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 on account of sale not justifiable in absence of any transfer. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Respondent/Assessee is a limited company. Original assessment order was passed on 31.08.2006. The assessment was reopened and was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 30.12.2009 qua computation of capital gains regarding assessee’s sale of its land and building.
Telangana High Court held that non-granting of at least seven days for furnishing reply is against the Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] dated 03.08.2022 issued by department. Accordingly, notice and order thereof is not sustainable.
The Madras High Court ruled that income tax assessment and penalty proceedings cannot survive if the foundational Section 148 reassessment notice has been statutorily quashed.
ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, as all underlying additions were deleted by the ITAT and claims were based on a CA-certified audit report.
ITAT Indore has remanded a case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after finding the appellate authority ignored the assessee’s reply and tax computation, violating natural justice.
Supreme Court held that Hyatt International has a fixed place Permanent Establishment in India within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, and hence income received under Strategic Oversight Services Agreement [SOSA] attributable to such PE and is taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act without mentioning the specific instance of misreporting in the notice or in order will vitiate the penalty order. Accordingly, penalty deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad holds NFAC wrongfully dismissed appeal on delay; remands case involving ₹213 Cr additions on grants and accrued interest.
