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...
The court examined whether interest on FDRs could be taxed as other income. It held that where funds are linked to a project, the interest retains its project nexus and is not separately taxable.
The case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since related-party expenses were accepted without detailed verification. Accordingly, revision is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that failure to issue a jurisdictional transfer order under Section 127 invalidates the assessment. It ruled that absence of such order renders proceedings void ab initio, irrespective of merits.
The judgment confirms that income from offshore equipment supply is not taxable where transactions occur outside India. The liaison office was also held not to create a taxable presence. The case highlights limits of tax jurisdiction over cross-border supplies.
The Tribunal confirmed addition of unexplained investments where the assessee could not substantiate the source of deposits. The ruling reinforces the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)s decision to allow a new claim under Section 10A, noting that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and aimed at determining correct tax liability.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid. It ruled that such a defect makes the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a claim admitted at the appellate stage must be examined on merits and cannot be denied merely due to time lapse. The case was remanded for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of expense disallowance after finding that occupation charges were settled during the relevant year. It ruled that such crystallized liabilities are allowable under Section 37(1), dismissing the Revenue’s objections.
