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 impugned notices and orders were issued by the respondents/revenue admittedly subsequent to the public announcement under Section 15 of the Code regarding CIRP process pertaining to assessee and it was only subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan of the Tribunal that Revenue issued the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
Delhi High Court accepts returned income for 12 years as limitation period for fresh assessment order expires. Details of Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd vs PCIT case.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of Rs 37 crores of exempt capital gain in a non-descript listed company operated by the accommodation entry provider, who has confessed that he has provided accommodations entries to the beneficiaries, including assessee remanded back to the file of AO for further enquiry.
Explore landmark case of Godaddy.Com LLC v. ACIT [2023] and learn why Delhi High Court ruled domain registration fees as not royalty. Get insights on the decision.
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be in the nature of review and accordingly, the material as has come to light in the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009 cannot be a sufficient ground to resort to reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that without pointing out any specific defect in the audited books of accounts, AO cannot and should not make any estimated addition. Accordingly, such estimated addition deleted.
Madras High Court held that order passed without granting video conference hearing as sought by the petitioner is unsustainable as it is clearly violation of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act on loans and advances given to subsidiary company unjustified as investment in subsidiary is purely for commercial expediency.
ITAT Jaipur held that non-deposit of employees contribution to ESI and PF within due date as per the respective Act is disallowance by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
