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 addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit sustained as assessee failed to discharge initial onus of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction.
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had called upon the AO to examine the issue afresh, the said direction could not have been disregarded by reference to a Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 issued by the CBDT.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition in respect of sale proceeds received for sale of shares on the stock exchange (BSE) as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Hyderabad held that as per the provisions of section 115VG of the Income Tax Act, once the assessee opts for the Tonnage Tax Scheme, the assessee cannot take the shield of taking the deduction of any other expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s. 144/147 making addition of alleged bogus purchase which is already added vide assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/147 and has attained finality is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Understand the Ahmedabad ITAT ruling that payments for certification services by foreign entities are not taxable in India without a fixed place of business. Full order analysis.
ITAT Mumbai held that no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made in the hands of assessee on account of ALP of specified domestic transactions as section 92BA(i) of Income Tax Act was omitted. Thus, since provisions of section 92D are not applicable, penalty u/s. 271G of the Income Tax Act untenable.
ITAT Mumbai held that since the shares were acquired on or after 01.10.2004, the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption of LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act even if the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was not paid at the time of acquisition.
Delhi High Court held that affiliation with and recognition by a regulatory authority are not essential attributes of education under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. NIIT Foundation engaged in conducting systematic and formal instruction, schooling or training qualifies u/s. 2(15).
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had accorded relief and allowed a deduction, the same was liable to be necessarily made by the AO. Accordingly, order denying relief pursuant to Tribunal decision is liable to be quashed.
