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...
Addition under Section 68 could not be sustained where assessee has established the genuineness of a Non-banking financial company (NBFC) investor, and the AO failed to rebut such evidence or trace any money trail linking the assessee to the invested funds.
ITAT held that interest earned on bank deposits is taxable and not covered by the principle of mutuality. The ruling confirms that dealings with third parties break mutuality protection.
The Tribunal admitted a new legal ground and held that jurisdictional defects can be raised at any stage. It quashed the assessment as the initial notice itself was issued without authority.
ITAT held reassessment invalid as it was based on already examined facts without fresh material. The ruling reinforces that reopening on mere change of opinion is not permissible.
The Tribunal ruled that even temporary withdrawals by a shareholder can trigger deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). It held that duration or repayment does not negate taxability.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be reopened on issues already examined earlier. It held that absence of fresh material and mere change of opinion renders reopening invalid.
ITAT Mumbai rules actuarial provisions for employee benefit schemes are allowable under Section 37(1) as ascertained liabilities, deletes major disallowances on expense provisions, limits TDS applicability to payment stage, and prevents double taxation of expenses.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are treated as co-operative societies for this purpose.
ITAT Mumbai holds that vague purpose in Form 10 can deny Sec 11(2) exemption, remanding case for verification of actual utilization and allowing assessee to substantiate specific charitable purpose.
ITAT held that once depreciation is allowed after scrutiny in the first year, it cannot be disallowed subsequently without fresh facts. The AO cannot revisit the same issue repeatedly. The key takeaway is that consistency must be maintained in tax assessments.
