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 Delhi held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution and confirmed the order of the AO as no submissions were made on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored to CIT(A).
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
ITAT Surat held that the Fixed Deposits can be treated as stock-in-trade if it forms part of banking business. Further, held that deposits that forms part of banking business, write off such loss will be a loss arising in the course of carrying on banking business.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 towards amount received as gift from son not justified since addition is made in a baseless manner, solely relying on unverified newspaper reports. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Held that the deposits made by the assessee were in the nature of fixed deposit investments. Therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee when the bank went to liquidation is only a capital loss.
Madras High Court held that in terms of section 245I, the Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) since the assessee was displaced from his office due to attachment of office on account of some purported fraud committed by him is sufficient cause.
As the assessee had not submitted his explanation with respect to cash deposit made by him during the demonetization period, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
ITAT Chennai held that only peak credit to be considered and no further addition to be made in case of circular transaction since bank account of appellant’s father duly considered for the purpose of calculating peak credit in the hands of assessee.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
