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...
Gujarat High Court held that refund entitled to assessee on the basis of order passed by CIT(A) cannot be unjustifiably adjusted against subsequent year’s demand. Accordingly, AO directed to credit refund amount in bank account of the petitioner.
ITAT Mumbai held that change of method of accounting from mercantile to cash system for recording interest income on loan due to financial distress at the end of borrower is justifiable and legitimate.
The assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India and is in the business of Non-Life Insurance, The assessee offers insurance covers for large projects like power plants, petrochemical, steel and chemical plants.
During the course of search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents related to the assessee were found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Prashant Bongirwar.
ITAT Bangalore held that the assesse is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act if the assesses able to establish the fact that the construction was commenced within the period prescribed of 3 years under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that since income of minor child is clubbed in the hands of assessee, TCS collected on the same needs to be credited in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, assessee cannot be deprived from the credit of TCS. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Raipur held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act is allowable since pre-condition regarding usage of land for agricultural purposes in two years immediately preceding date of transfer is satisfied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act for bonafide mistake of filing ITR-5 instead of correct ITR-7 not justifiable since the same is just a procedural technical mistake.
ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is invalid and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment not tenable since the same needs to be allocated between joint beneficial owners. Thus, matter restore back to file of AO.
