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 Ahmedabad held that non-compliance to notices issued u/s. 250 by CIT(A) resulted into delayed appellate proceedings. Accordingly, cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee for lack of diligence.
Assessee being a real estate developer, allotted 10060 equity shares as per the fair market value (FMV) computed in accordance with Sec.56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11U / 11UA.
Kerala High Court held that revisionary proceedings by PCIT u/s. 263 rightly exercised since claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts was assumed by assessing officer to be correct without adequate enquiry. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Agra held that addition towards interest paid on CC is liable to be deleted since interest free advance given to potato growers (farmers) were out of the business expediency. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that expenditure towards sales promotion expenses allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act since bills along with other evidences related to the same is duly produced. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT remanded back the matter to CIT (A) after observing that assessee was not able to attend the hearing before CIT (A) due to mismanagement of its state of affair.
ITAT Kolkata held that condonation of delay in filing of an appeal is liable to be allowed as sufficient cause shown. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside and matter restored back for fresh adjudication.
On appeal CIT (A) observed that assessee used different PAN in Form 35 instead of one used for reassessment. Assessee neither file return in response to notice u/s 148 not it complied with the statutory notices.
ITAT Allahabad held that order passed by PCIT without considering the contentions of the assessee is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Thereafter, PCIT called for the assessment records and examined the proceedings. CIT(A) after going through the case records and assessment records took a view that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
