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...
Rajasthan High Court held that since reassessment order is distinct and different, the period of limitation for exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act would be the date of original assessment order. Thus, entire proceedings barred by limitation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as cash deposits during demonetization period duly recorded in books of account and source of cash deposits duly maintained.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as sale consideration of shares duly reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that holding period of the capital goods includes the date on which asset is acquired and also date of sale/ transfer of the same. Accordingly, shares held for exactly 12 months treated as long term.
ITAT Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
ITAT Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that matter needs to be remanded back as assessee failed to furnish corroborative documentary evidence to prove cash sales during demonetization period and certain proofs were submitted only before the present tribunal.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.
