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 Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
The appellant are that the assessee being a public charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science.
ITAT Delhi held that grant-in-aid incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is allowable as deduction. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and addition of the same by AO is liable to be deleted.
When the person from whom the amount was borrowed has written off the amount in his accounts, the liability ceased to exist. As there was cessation of liability, the same cannot be part of sundry creditors of the assessee.
The assessee filed its original return of income which was taken for scrutiny assessment and regular assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29-12-2011.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 on the issue which is already dealt in the original assessment void ab initio and bad in law since no new fresh material was pointed out at the time of reopening of assessment.
In my view, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the statutory authority was bound to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner through video conferencing as mentioned above. The result of this infraction would be that the impugned orders will have to be set aside.
Re-assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 29.06.2019 and the deduction of Rs.24,48,040/- claimed u/s 80P in respect of interest income from The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. was disallowed by the AO.
The CIT(A) has also not given any independent finding after verifying that whether there is an actual syncronised trading between the assessee and that of company scrip i.e. M/s. Radhe Developers Ltd.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
