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 the entire assessment order have not been passed in the case of non-existing entity i.e. amalgamated entity is null and void and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is engaged in development of the infrastructure facility and therefore, a developer, which confers right of eligibility to the assessee to claim benefits u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. Mere referring assessee as a contractor in the agreement cannot deprive assessee from claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that government grants received in lieu of FRP i.e. Financial Restructuring Plant is not required to be reduced from the cost of capital assets. Accordingly, reopening of assessment unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest on unsecured loans unjustified as genuineness of loans and utilization of loan funds for business purpose not disputed and interest paid on open in balances of unsecured loan creditors.
ITAT Delhi held that as per India-USA DTAA provision of consultancy services cannot be treated as FIS merely because the service provider while providing consultancy services had used substantial technical skill and expertise.
ITAT Kolkata held that the assessee has no permanent establishment in India and these services were also rendered outside India but the services has been used in India and, therefore, it is taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of employee stock option expenses alleging it to be capital expenditure is unsustainable in law in as much as such expenditure are revenue in nature and hence allowable.
ITAT Mumbai held that entire assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity is null and void and hence is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that “other method” provided in Rule 10AB r.w.s. 92C (1) would be a good substitute for CUP as there is lack of reliable comparables in case of royalty transactions as royalty payments have been made for unique intangibles
Supreme Court held that dividend received by the Indian company having permanent establishment in Oman is not taxable in India in terms of Article 25 read with Article 8 (bis) of the Omani Tax Laws
