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 severance compensation received by the employee is a capital receipt and the same is not chargeable to tax under Section 17(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
CIT(A) held that as per Section 5 of the Act , if an individual is residing for more than 183 days in India he would be considered as Resident in India and his entire global income would be taxable in India. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as PCIT already decided the matter in favour of the assessee while invoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. According, reassessment action quashed.
ITAT Bangalore rules CIT(A) cannot dismiss an income tax appeal on limitation grounds after con-doning the delay. Case remitted for fresh consideration.
Signing of the assessment order was an integral part of order generation in e-assessment and the assessment proceedings conclude only after the order was digitally signed, therefore, signing of the assessment order should not be brushed aside lightly.
ITAT Cuttack held that difference between the sales declared in the profit and loss account and as per the cash book entire added by PCIT without providing sufficient opportunity to reconcile the same. Thus, AO directed to examine the issue.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed income merely on the basis of conjectures cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, also held that addition purely based on post-dated cheques cannot be sustained.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on mere change of opinion is not permissible in law. Accordingly, petition allowed and reassessment notice quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. Thus, reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that the issuance of notice u/s. 148 based on cryptic reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the Pr.CIT u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act do not pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Thus, reassessment quashed.
