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 held that amount received towards service rendered by the assessee is in connection with installation/erection of plant and machinery involved in mining of natural resources fall within the exceptions provided under Article 12(5)(f) and 12(5)(g) of India – Portugal DTAA and hence not taxable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest payment on late payment of TDS is not compensatory in nature and is not allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that prior to 1-4- 2024 there was no bar on assessee claiming exemption under section 10 (23EC) and under section 11 and 12 of the act. Accordingly, contribution received from commodity exchange and members thereof is exempt u/s 10(23EC) of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, without indicating basis for having a reason to belief that income has escaped assessment, merely based on change of opinion is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata remanded the matter back to CIT(A) as relief was granted to the assessee on the basis of various submissions which were for the first time furnished before CIT(A) and CIT(A) prior to granting relief didn’t conduct any enquiry on the same.
ITAT Raipur held that assessee-society not being wholly and substantially financed by the government is not entitled for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act results in rendering the final assessment as one without jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act without scrutinizing the accounts of the respondent/assessee unjustified in law and hence liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by the assessee qualifies as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under sub-clause (4) of Article 12 of Indo – Singapore DTAA and hence rightly brought to tax @10%.
ITAT Raipur held that reopening of completed assessment beyond four years without failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts is unjustified and liable to be quashed.
