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 Pune held that non-inclusion of disallowance u/s. 43B while filing income tax return is bona fide and inadvertent error. Accordingly, imposition of penalty under section 270A for bona fide mistake without intent to evade payment of tax is not justifiable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable as assessment made by AO after proper verification of evidences. Further, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Raipur that where the income of the assessee has been computed by applying a gross profit rate, there is no need to look into the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as gross profit rate takes care of expenses otherwise than by way of crossed cheque.
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without any fresh material, amounts to mere change of opinion, and hence the same is not sustainable in law.
ITAT Raipur held that change in method of depreciation can be reason for difference in closing stock of plant and machinery in previous year vis-à-vis opening stock in current year and the same needs further examination, hence matter restored back.
The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued. Consequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were also issued.
ITAT Mumbai held that the very basis of which the Assessing Officer formed the belief that the income liable to tax is escaped assessment was based upon incorrect understanding of the facts and is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
ITAT Chennai rules on Sakthi Realty case, deleting additions for unexplained deposits. Details on customer deposits, tax assessment, and tribunal’s decision.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act not justified since value adopted by the DVO and actual purchase price declared by the assessee falls within the tolerance limit of 10%. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
