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...
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed u/s. 148A(d) is non-speaking since AO failed to provide adequate counter explanation against reasons furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment u/s. 147 non-est and void ab initio.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that co-operative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act towards interest income earned from investment in other co-operative bank. Accordingly, deduction allowed and appeal by revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 in absence of any fresh material, based on material already available during assessment proceedings, tantamount to mere change of opinion and the same is not permissible in law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act based on presumptions and concept of human probability without bringing on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry is not sustainable.
Held that there was substantive correspondence between the petitioner and the Assessing Officer on all materials and subject matter of reopening and all such materials had formed part of the disclosure by the petitioner.
The court held that the other three companies were also carrying out large-scale projects compared to assessee, making them unsuitable for comparison or setting industry standards.
Assessee had filed his income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring ₹20,89,430. The case was scrutinized for capital gains from agricultural land sales and cash deposits during demonetization.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of claim under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act justified since assessee is engaged in only collection and transportation of solid wastes and is not engaged in operating and maintaining sold waste management system.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest rate should be charged on the basis of prevailing LIBOR rate and no SBI PLR rate since invoices are raised in foreign currency. Accordingly, it is directed to TPO to apply LIBOR rate as basis for computation of interest.
