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...
In the Nano Infra Promoters Pvt Ltd vs ITO case at ITAT Kolkata, learn why receipts couldn’t be added to income under section 68 just for summons non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi in Preeti Bhardwaj Vs ITO held that AO cannot treat cash deposits as unexplained when assessee has provided the source of cash deposits being cash withdrawals without bringing adverse material.
The case pertained to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,16,82,953/- paid on an unsecured loan. This ruling sheds light on the meticulous examination of evidence and the importance of substantiating claims in tax matters.
Rugby Regency P. Ltd appeals against denial of depreciation on windmills and addition of income under Section 56(2)(viib) of Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis of the case from ITAT Delhi.
ITAT Mumbai held that non-examination of the details clearly makes the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, PCIT correctly assumed the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that no addition is warranted under Sec 56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) of Income Tax Act when difference between purchase value and fair market value is less than 10%.
Reassessment proceedings on the ground that assessee was one of the beneficiary of Client Code Modification (CCM) by some broker was quashed as there was no material to infer that such client code modification had been done with the malafide purpose of shifting the profit or evasion of the tax.
TDS was not to be deducted on payments to Manthan Systems Inc. (MSI) for sales commission under section 40(a)(i) as services rendered to assessee by the said Manthan Systems Inc. was not falling within the ambit of FTS or under Article 12 of the treaty, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payment made to the MSI.
Explore the case of Bhagwan Laxman Rokde Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) regarding validity of reopening u/s.147, taxation on undisclosed income, and partnership firm transactions.
Analysis of Kishorkumar Bhalara Vs PCIT (ITAT Rajkot) case, where the ITAT ruled that incorrect assumption of facts alone is not sufficient to revoke jurisdiction under Section 263.
