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...
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi [CIT(E)] dated 28.06.2023 for cancellation of registration granted u/s 12A and u/s 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Chhattisgarh High Court held that reasonable cause has been shown for non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 269T of the Act and further it is not disputed that the transaction is genuine and bona fide.
In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 Hon’ble apex court have held that The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed.
AO observed that a perusal of the books of account (specifically cash book) of the companies, revealed that an amount of Rs.75 lacs and Rs.25 lacs respectively were given by both companies on imprest account to the assessee.
ITAT Pune held that addition towards short term capital gain based on unregistered agreement cannot be sustained since revenue has not brought any evidence on record that possession of property is actually handed over to the purchaser.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed in as much as all the necessary information were supplied by the assessee and there was no failure to disclose any material fact. Accordingly, reopening quashed.
Bombay High Court held that since issue already examined during the course of assessment proceedings, re-opening of assessment on same issue amounts to change of opinion. Thus, re-opening based on change of opinion is not sustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing of Form 10B is not justifiable since condition of filing Form 10B is directory in nature and not mandatory. Accordingly, appeal allowed and exemption granted.
ITAT Raipur restored the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as intimation of fixation of hearing was sent via email, and no physical/ hard copy was sent, inspite of specifically stating in Form 35 that all notices/ communication to be sent in a mode otherwise through email.
ITAT Delhi held that no addition in respect of share premium under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since necessary evidence along with valuation certificate as per rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules already furnished. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
