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...
Delhi High Court held that CIT has rightly held that assessment order was passed without making necessary inquiries and verification hence in terms of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263, the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
As per AO, Shri Birat Chandra Dagara was one of the partner of the assessee firm and had owned the mining lease and submitted the details as per which the assessee was found indulged in the illegal production of iron ore.
Rajasthan High Court held that share of the employee in the provident fund deducted by the employer, has to be deposited as per the due date fixed by the EPF Act and ESI Act concerned and not as per Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
Further, revenue also contested that whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the excise duty refund of Rs 1,63,15,661/- as capital receipt, which were earlier treated as revenue receipt, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain arising out of sale of shares not taxable in the hands of foreign company since holding is less than 10% hence Article 14(4) of DTAA between India and Spain cannot be applied.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Vijay Jewellers, citing estimated additions for bogus purchases. No concealment or inaccurate details found.
ITAT Rajkot reviews the PCIT’s revision under Section 263 regarding income classification in Jayshree Sarees case.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act on the right to collect toll on the roads developed on BOT basis is not eligible.
The Tribunal reiterated that the PCIT cannot expand the scope of assessment beyond the reasons recorded by the AO during the reassessment process. Thus, any claims regarding non-verification of the other issues raised by the PCIT could not justify overturning the AO’s assessment.
