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 Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
Tribunal held that GST-based turnover differences cannot be taxed again when income was already recorded in prior years and notional interest recognized under IND-AS cannot be taxed unless it actually accrues.
Tribunal held that technical handling income is covered under Article 8 of India–France DTAA. It ruled that such income arises from operation of aircraft in international traffic and is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without establishing the assessee as the actual beneficiary of cash credits. It upheld deletion where ownership was not proven.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible for claiming Initial Public Offer i.e. [IPO] expenses proportionate to the shareholding in terms of clause (i) of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal upheld denial of loss set-off as the statutory eight-year limit for carrying forward capital losses had expired. It ruled that pending litigation does not extend the permissible period under the law.
The Tribunal allowed deduction of royalty paid for use of a logo, noting that no specific defect was found in the supporting evidence. It held that the expenditure could not be disallowed merely on grounds of justification without examining its business purpose.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
