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...
ITAT Mumbai held that short-term capital loss [STCL] on which STT is paid [which is taxable at 15% u/s. 111A of the Income Tax Act] can be set off against short-term capital gains [STCG] on which STT is not paid [which is taxable at 30% u/s. 115AD].
Bangalore ITAT condones 66-day delay in appeal filing for Smt. Shobha, citing COVID-19 lockdown and CA’s pre-occupation, emphasizing sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Delhi held that Bright Line Test doesn’t have statutory mandate and cannot be applied for determining Arm’s Length Price [ALP] of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion [AMP] expense. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as income is estimated on the basis of gross profit rate. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) set aside and appeal stands allowed.
Madras High Court held that Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme benefit is not admissible in case of assessments relating to search and seizure when the disputed tax exceeds INR 5 Crore. Therefore, writ petitions are dismissed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition on the basis of loose paper without any corroborative material is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted and appeal is allowed.
The present appeals are filed by the Revenue and Assessee against different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 04.08.2022 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19.
ITAT Bangalore quashed a Section 263 revision order concerning a Section 54F deduction, citing insufficient inquiry by Assessing Officer and lack of adequate opportunity for taxpayer.
ITAT Mumbai held that all the conditions of slump sale as provided under section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act read with section 50B of the Act is satisfied. Accordingly, benefit of section 50B granted and AO directed to compute the business income accordingly.
Delhi High Court held that concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely based on suspicion. Accordingly, reassessment quashed as there is no tangible material to form ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment.
