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 Ahmedabad held that the TP assessment carried out by the TPO proceeded on the basis of incorrect appreciation of nature of services availed by the assessee from its AE. Thus, issue of determination of ALP of transactions with AE restored back to TPO.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the issue of reopening was examined in the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the reason framed under wrong facts are not valid reason, therefore such reasons to believe cannot be sustained. Thus, reopening of assessment quashed.
ITAT Mumbai restores Ivan Santosh Fernandes’ appeal, citing Covid-based extension, for reassessment on AY 2012-13. Penalty appeal also directed for fresh review.
Delhi High Court held that the assessment of tax under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is a self-assessment and in a strict sense cannot be stated as assessment framed by the AO for the purpose of reopening of assessment under section 147.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act without adequate inquire. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 rightly invoked as order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form No. 35A signed by the Authorized Representative is only an irregularity which is curable u/s. 292B of the Income Tax Act and not an illegality. Thus, order set aside with a direction to pass order on merits.
Assessee was engaged in the business of purchasing and renting properties, as also the entire income of the assessee was based on the income received from leasing its properties.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that taxation must be based on income that has actually accrued or arisen. Thus, addition towards decentralized grants merely routed assessee and simply transferred to other government agencies as per GOG’s directions is unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards bogus purchases made without proper verification of facts but just on the basis of suspicion, surmises and unverified information unjustified and liable to be deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
