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...
ITAT Mumbai held that once assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act on Supa Wind Power Project 17 MW Unit has been accepted in the initial Assessment Year, the same cannot be denied in the subsequent Assessment Years.
The computation of income by AO giving effect to CIT’s direction was an assessment order which was appealable. The order passed by CIT(A), therefore, holding the assessment order to be not appealable was incorrect in law.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue received from various hotel owners for providing various centralized services cannot be treated as fees for included services (FIS) either under Article 12(4)(a) or 12(4)(b) of the India-US tax treaty. Thus, in absence of PE in India, the same is not taxable.
Read the detailed analysis of Hiral Exports vs ITO case where ITAT Mumbai deletes Rs.40,82,500 addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to failure to rebut evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of the agreement by no stretch of imagination could be the date of sale of the shares by the assessee. As date of contract of sale would be date of fulfilment of conditions specified in share purchase agreement, date of contract will be treated as date of transfer.
In a case between Konkan Education Society Sevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd and ITO, ITAT Pune rules interest & dividend from cooperative investment deductible under Income Tax Act.
Explore the ITAT Delhi ruling on the eligibility of management service fees paid to non-resident AEs under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Iris Worldwide Integrated Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT.
Ahmedabad ITAT quashes Sec 263 order in Soham Buildcon vs PCIT-3 case, citing absence of twin conditions for exercising power under the provision. Full text analysis provided.
Explore how DCIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Limited case sets precedent for setting off deemed short-term capital gain on sale of depreciable against long-term capital loss.
Bisharpara Kodalia Cooperative Credit Society Ltd vs ITO: Kolkata ITAT rules that CPC’s adjustment of Sec 80P deduction pre-April 2021 is beyond its jurisdiction.
