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...
Bombay High Court held that order passed without granting an opportunity of being heard is passed against the principles of natural justice and accordingly, is liable to be quashed. Thus, petition is allowed and orders are quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act is allowable inspite of certain errors while filing form 10B since the claim is supported by audited financials, revised audit report and revised computation.
In the present case, recovery or repayment of fraudulent income does not qualify as an allowable expense. Allowing deductions for recovery of fraudulent income would contradict the legislative intent of the Income-tax Act.
During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee sold two trademarks “Coldarin” and “Raricap”. The gains accrued on the transfer of both these capital assets gave rise to income chargeable to tax under the head “Capital Gains”.
ITAT Hyderabad held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has not earned any dividend income. Thus, when there is no dividend income, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable.
ITAT Jaipur sets aside Resonance Eduventures assessment orders, citing mechanical approval by Addl. CIT without proper application of mind as mandated under Section 153D.
ITAT Jaipur ruling on Parshavnath Buildestate Pvt Ltd vs ACIT regarding unexplained expenditures under Section 69C and taxation under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that extension of period for bringing immovable property to sale by auction is justifiable since time limit got extended as per proviso to rule 68B. Thus, writ petition stands dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee just needs to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. Assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted since genuineness of transaction proved.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer renders assessment bad-in-law. Thus, assessment order is bad-in-law and hence liable to be quashed.
