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 Delhi cancels penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act on Pawan Kumar for loan repayment via bank transfer, challenging jurisdiction and citing legal grounds. Full text of the order included.
Sunil Dandriyal vs JCIT case underscores significance of understanding the correct starting point for calculating the time limit for penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The decision reinforces the principle that the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO, rather than the issuance of a show-cause notice by the JCIT, triggers the commencement of the statutory time limit.
Income earned from educational activities is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Read the detailed analysis of the ITAT Kolkata ruling in the case of Durgapur Society of Management Science vs ITO.
Explore the ITAT Rajkot’s detailed analysis of Vaidya Realities vs PCIT case under Section 263, highlighting the AO’s assessment, PCIT’s concerns, and the final verdict.
Explore the ITAT Delhi ruling on Section 68, as it clarifies the applicability to unexplained cash credits and purchase costs in Ishwar R Pujara Vs ACIT case.
Satpal Singh Sandhu Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) In absence of Sec. 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner, i.e debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a), would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable intimations being issued, leading to chaos
ITAT Delhi acknowledged the significance of jurisdictional facts and held that a quasi-judicial authority must decide the issue of jurisdiction when raised. The lack of a clear decision on jurisdiction prompted the ITAT to set aside the PCIT’s order and remand the matter for a fresh decision, including the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai quashes assessment order in Ghanshyam Sagarmal Modi vs. ACIT case. Non-appearance justified; CIT(A)’s ex-parte decision overturned.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act are applicable in cases, wherein, the director of subsidiary company, to whom payment has been made, has substantial interest in the assessee.
Explore ITAT Chennai’s ruling in Smt. Chandrasekaran Valarmathi vs. ITO case. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act won’t apply when property is purchased for business use of a partnership firm.
