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...
Assessee, i.e., the father of the minor, Mr. Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali had originally filed his income tax return declaring a total income of ₹2,71,630, which was accepted after a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).
Patna High Court held that notice must be supported by reasons. Accordingly, since notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not supported by reasons the same is liable to be quashed. Thus, writ petition stand allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that amount of corpus of donations i.e. voluntary donations received by trust registered under section 12A are considered as capital receipts and hence not chargeable to Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would render issuance of Income Tax notice u/s 143(2) invalid.
Delhi High Court held that no addition on account of sale of fly ash since the entire sale proceeds of fly ash were deposited in a fly ash utilization fund and the said funds were to be spent only in accordance with directions issued by Government.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act erroneous as there is no over-valuation of shares over the fair market value of shares. Accordingly, addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) deleted.
Assessee was predominantly engaged in activities of imparting education and also involving the certain educational institutions. Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on disclosing nil income.
Assessee was a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, had undertaken a housing project named Aakash Nidhi. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,51,07,390 on the entire profit of the project comprising Wings A to G.
ITAT Jaipur held that trust incurring more expenditure than income doesn’t debar it from benefit of exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in respect of income admittedly applied for charitable purpose. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Jharkhand High Court held that order solely based on the judgement which has been later on over-ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court requires interference and hence the order passed by ITAT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
