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...
Assessee was justified in objecting to jurisdiction of AO and transfer of his case, which obviously could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and disclosing to him the reasons for not accepting his point of view.
On appeal CIT (A) held that disallowance u/s 10AA can be made only when the total income is enhanced by the AO or TPO. Co-ordinate bench has already decided this issue for AY 2014-15 and disallowance u/s 10AA was deleted.
An amendment to the agreement on September 24, 2014, revised the terms of consideration. Assessee argued that possession of the property was never transferred as evidenced by ownership documents like the 7/12 extract and electricity bills.
ITAT Pune held that addition toward unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted since assessee inadvertently mentioned ‘commission expense’ instead of actual ‘construction expenses. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not justified since loan transactions were done through banking channels and loans were repaid in short period. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Delhi High Court held that ITAT cannot address the ground which remained unaddressed by CIT(A). Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to decide on the grounds that were not decided.
As regarding disallowance of interest-free loans on unsecured loans, it was concluded that the same were part of routine business transactions and were of short-term nature therefore, no addition for interest charged on the loans.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of Revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act after approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT is against the Provisions of Law. Accordingly, revisionary proceedings quashed.
Assessee didnot file return for the year under consideration. As per AIMS module information received that assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.16,84,100/- as cash during the demonetization period. Case was reopened notice was issued accordingly.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee has submitted all the necessary details in terms of purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and payment are made through cheques, hence disallowance of such purchases is not justified.
