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 Delhi restored Fiserv India’s appeal, citing CIT(A)’s failure to address adjournment requests. The case will be reconsidered for a fair hearing and review.
ITAT remands Ganpat Vidhyanagar Uma Parivar Trust’s case to JAO for reconsideration after CIT(E) condones delay in filing Forms 10B and 9A.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act not leviable since income assessed and income processed are same. Accordingly, in absence of under reporting of income, no penalty can be levied.
Bombay High Court held that entire process of according sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act for initiation of reassessment granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind is unjustified and hence reassessment proceedings quashed.
Delhi High Court held that passing of a draft assessment order as mandated under section 144C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory prior to passing of final assessment order. Accordingly, order liable to be set aside.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO had not demonstrated any falsehood in the particulars provided by assessee. Mere making a claim that was not legally sustainable did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that it is mandatory for the AO to refer the valuation to the DVO if the assessee objects to the adoption of the stamp duty value and claims that the value adopted exceeds the fair market value.
ITAT Delhi held that bona fide error cannot be basis of imposition of penalty and hence imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by First Appellate Authority.
Delhi High Court held that determination as carried out by the Designated Authority under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act] is clearly rendered finality and cannot possibly be reopened or revised by any authority under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, rectification notice issued u/s. 154 quashed.
ITAT Chennai quashes penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271A for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the Srinivasan Chandrasekara case, citing legal deficiencies.
