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...
In the matter abovementioned ITAT Banglore held that interest earned by the assessee from the co-operative banks/commercial bank is considered under the head income from other sources, relief to be granted to the assessee u/s 57 in accordance with law.
ITAT Pune cancels penalty imposed on Balbir Kaur Birdie for non-compliance with tax notices, citing reasonable cause due to COVID-19 and technical issues.
ITAT Pune rules that taxpayers must disclose cash-in-hand, bank balances, and receivables, even under the Presumptive Taxation Scheme, for accurate tax assessment.
India’s Income Tax Department shifts to a taxpayer-friendly approach, prioritizing silent recoveries, refund adjustments, and reduced coercion for pending tax demands.
Since reasons recorded by AO to form prima facie conclusion that there was likelihood of any gain on account of revenue expenses incurred by assessee was also without any basis in the absence of any fresh tangible material available with the respondent AO as the fact remained that assessee had unrealized gain and unrealized loss which was not claimed and duly reflected in the computation income as assessee had claimed only bank charges expenditure for hedging of foreign currency.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur decision in Mujmmeel Vs ACIT, examining Section 263 order invoking unexplained investments and its implications on tax assessments.
ITAT Chandigarh rules against penalty on estimated income in AKM Resorts vs ACIT, reinforcing that additions based on estimation don’t imply income concealment.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without disposing the objections raised by the assessee is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, reassessment notice u/s. 148 set aside.
PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 in the case of Bank of Maharashtra allowing deduction under Section 36(1)(via) as Assessing Officer’s (AO) assessment order was not erroneous, even if it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Aggrieved by the order passed by AO, assessee moved on with an appeal to CIT(A), where assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that Section 148 was not justified.
