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...
Therefore, the amount distributed by it to the Petitioner would not qualify as exempt dividend income under Section 10(34) of the Act. This to our mind would be merely a “change of opinion”.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 54F and 54B of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-adherence to strict time limits. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of investments made beyond the prescribed time period.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit cannot be sustained as cash deposit already included in turnover declared by the assessee in return of income. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per previous provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act applicable till 31st March 2013, the assessee was not required to explain the source of money provided by the creditors.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that taxing entire unaccounted cash receipts or on-money receipts not justified as only profit embedded in such receipts is taxable. Accordingly, AO directed to adopt 13% profit margin on real estate business and tax accordingly.
ITAT Raipur sets aside reassessment order for Kachrulal Jitendra Kumar, ruling the Section 148 notice time-barred. Cites Supreme Court judgments in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal on reassessment limitation.
Delhi ITAT sets aside penalty on Globus Infocom for non-compliance, citing AO’s own records and a crucial precedent on Section 143(3) assessments.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation of amalgamating company cannot be disallowed merely for non-filing of Form No. 62 which is only directory. Thus, non-compliance of the same would not disentitle the assessee to claim carry forward losses to be set off. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified since PCIT correctly observed that the very basis of disallowance of depreciation was on an incorrect understanding of the facts by AO. Accordingly, revision order upheld.
ITAT Delhi held that claim of interest u/s. 24b of the Income Tax Act was duly examined during original as well as reassessment proceedings. Thus, the plausible view having been taken by the AO cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
