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 Mumbai held that once the source of cash is taxed, it cannot be further taxed as unexplained cash expenditure. Hence, addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for cash payments deleted.
During the course of survey proceedings, the statement of one of the partners of the firm Mr. Zinu, was recorded, who had stated that he earns commission @ 5.5% from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji for supply of manpower.
PCIT was of the view that the export incentives and other income claimed by the assessee were not eligible for the exemption u/s. 10AA. PCIT was of the view that the assessee had claimed excess exemption under Section 10AA by a sum of Rs. 7,08,83,828.
In a recent ruling ITAT Delhi partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and modified the order passed by the AO is modified to restrict the unaccounted income by applying 0.3% of the total credits received during the year.
ITAT Mumbai disallowed the claim of depreciation under section 32 since assessee failed to prove that car was used for the purpose of assessee’s business wholly or in part. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that validity of reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has to be determined based on original reasons disclosed to the assessee. Such reasons cannot be improved upon subsequently.
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that that the activities / services do not qualify as stewardship / shareholder activity. Further, assessee correctly determined Arm’s Length Price in respect of management fees by using Transaction Net Margin Method i.e. TNMM.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of order by CIT(A) without taking into account the submission made by the assessee is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remitted back to the file of CIT(A).
ITAT Kolkata held that even after acceptance of fact that appellant is an entry provider, onus is on the appellant to prove that transaction was not of appellant but of somebody else’s. Accordingly, matter remanded for re-verification.
