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...
The Delhi ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A are invalid when the Assessing Officer does not identify the precise statutory clause for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal ruled that such omission goes to the root of jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that lawful TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the Assessing Officer overlooked an earlier rectification order under Section 154. The Tribunal directed grant of TDS credit and deletion of interest under Sections 234A and 234B.
The Bombay High Court held that the search authorisation under Section 132 was invalid because the satisfaction note lacked relevant material and failed to establish a genuine reason to believe. The Court quashed the search and all consequential proceedings.
ITAT Indore held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied when investment in new agricultural land was made within the prescribed two-year period. The Tribunal ruled that procedural non-compliance with the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme was not sufficient to reject the claim.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely because a liability remains unpaid for a long period. In absence of any waiver, remission, or cessation of liability, the addition was rightly deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to purchase of MHADA leasehold property rights despite reliance on Section 50C rulings. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to obtain a DVO valuation before recomputing the addition.
Delhi ITAT restored ₹6.30 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the Mauritius investor’s financial statements were unsigned and unauthenticated. The Tribunal held that incomplete documents cannot establish identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of transactions.
Delhi ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot make additions beyond the specific issues remanded by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263. Fresh additions unrelated to the revision directions were therefore rightly deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record how the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reopening for violating the first proviso to Section 147.
