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...
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The tribunal examined whether sales receipts can be treated as unexplained cash credits. It held that documented sales recorded in books cannot be taxed under Section 68.
ACIT Vs Bharat Rail Automations Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Nagpur) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur, arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Year 2015–16. The assessee, engaged in design, development, […]
ITAT Agra held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act before setting off carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee succeeds on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by relying on binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. It ruled that prior judicial decisions in the assessee’s own case justified deletion of disallowance.
The case examined reopening based on a prior disallowance under Section 80IB(10). The Court found that the disallowance had already been reversed by appellate authorities. Therefore, reopening based on the same ground was held invalid.
ITAT held that failure to record how seized material impacts taxable income invalidates proceedings. All assessments were quashed due to defective satisfaction note.
The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that ownership and connection must be established through evidence. The decision underscores limits of statutory presumptions under Section 292C.
The case examined classification of bank interest earned by a credit co-operative society. The Tribunal ruled it is business income and not income from other sources. The decision allows full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The case examined whether online learning services involve technical services. The Court ruled that the platform only facilitated access to content and did not provide technical services. The decision clarifies tax treatment of digital platforms.
