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...
Gujarat High Court held that entire addition towards bogus purchases not justifiable accordingly, addition at the rate of 6% of the bogus purchases is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] is most appropriate method in determining Arm’s Length Price [ALP] for sale of power by Captive Power Plant to non-eligible units of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, appeal allowed and reassessment quashed.
ITAT Kolkata rules in favor of Philips India, affirming 30% depreciation on moulds owned by the company but used by exclusive vendors for manufacturing.
ITAT Delhi allows real estate developer Sourya Towers to claim ₹64.72 Cr loss on an abandoned Amritsar project as a revenue deduction, overturning a disallowance.
High Court holds reassessment invalid; share value difference on exchange for interest in a not-for-profit entity not taxable as perquisite under Section 2(24)(iv).
Delhi ITAT remands Tejasvi Bhalla’s Rs. 7 Cr income addition under Section 69 to AO, mandating verification of capital and stock balances for clarity.
ITAT Ahmedabad partially allows Vadilal International’s appeal, cutting the Section 14A disallowance for exempt dividend income from Rs. 15 lakh to Rs. 30,000.
Madras High Court held that reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated on the basis of change of opinion is invalid. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and substantial questions of law is answered in favour of assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act gets applicable as source of undisclosed income admitted during the course of survey not explained. Merely disclosing and paying tax doesn’t protect assessee from clutches of section 69A.
