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 addition towards unsecured loan where loan was repaid is unsustainable, whereas, addition where assessee failed to demonstrate repayment or interest payment to creditor sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that additional evidence reconciling the discrepancy in receipts as per Form No. 26AS and books of accounts were not submitted before AO or CIT(A). Accordingly, matter send back to CIT(A).
Where an agricultural land was sold to a non-agriculturist, the same did not loose its status as agricultural land and could not be classified as a capital assets.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the Tribunal has no power to recall/review its own orders in terms of scope and power of Tribunal for rectification of order u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that expenditure incurred on software project, which was sought to be developed however never came into existence and no new asset came into existence which would be of an enduring benefit to the assessee, are allowable as revenue in nature.
ITAT Mumbai held that when the reserve/provisions created in the year where the assessee has increased the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act, the assessee is entitled to reduce the amount withdrawn from such reserve if the same is credited to the P & L account in that year.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that additional interest under section 244A(1A) is applicable where there is a delay in granting the refund due to the assessee. Provisions of addition interest are effective prospectively from 01.06.2016.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justified as deduction was claimed u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Income Tax Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Income Tax Act not imposable as AO failed to link additional income disclosed by the assessee with the incriminating material found during search. Thus, penalty u/s. 271AAB deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of reopening of assessment based on mere change of opinion and not taking into account the work-in-progress method of accounting followed by the assessee is unjustifiable and liable to be quashed.
