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 Tribunal held that receipts from sponsorship and royalty were incidental to the promotion of sports. It ruled that absence of profit motive prevented application of the proviso to section 2(15), allowing exemption under sections 11 and 12.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
The Tribunal held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proof of actual cessation of liability. It found that mere non-payment or absence of confirmation is insufficient to establish remission.
The issue involved taxing capital gains from a development agreement in multiple years. The court held the same income cannot be taxed twice and set aside the addition subject to verification.
The Tribunal observed disproportionate spending on contractual incentives compared to charity. It directed re-examination of whether such costs served trust objectives. The case highlights scrutiny of administrative expenses.
ITAT Mumbai upheld 12.5% addition on alleged bogus purchases, ruling that only profit element can be taxed since sales were accepted; full disallowance or 25% addition was held excessive and unjustified.
ITAT held that where sales are not disputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only 15% profit element was taxed, reinforcing that tax applies to real income, not gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that unfinished properties classified as work-in-progress cannot be subjected to notional rent under section 23. Since construction was incomplete, the addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot examine issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without approval. Since total deposits were assessed instead of only demonetization deposits, the addition was invalid and deleted.
The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. It held that re-examining already scrutinized facts does not justify reopening under section 147.
