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...
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in DCIT vs Centum Learning Ltd on debts claim, business nexus & re-adjudication. A critical look at the order dated 12.04.2019.
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Bushra Javed Vs ACIT: Indexation benefits for acquisition costs based on payment year. Read the full legal insight here.
ITAT Surat restored the matter back to the file of Pr. CIT as revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed without issuance of show cause notice on the subject matter. Such revisionary order is against the principal of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb is vague and ambiguous, accordingly, penalty proceedings not sustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act are not applicable on sells of pre-paid SIM at discounted price to the distributors. Further, as no TDS deductible, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that the receipts from offshore supply of rolling stock (train sets) cannot be taxable in India as the transfer of title over the goods has taken place outside India.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, TPO can pass the order at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred u/s 153 expires. TPO order passed after the prescribed time limit is non-est and barred by limitation.
ITAT Surat held that section 147 doesn’t allow the re-assessment of an income merely because of the fact that AO has change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment.
ITAT Kolkata held that AO failed to examine the agreement as composite agreement and hence non-examination of AO with that angle has caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue and hence CIT rightly set aside the assessment order by exercising powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on incriminating material found during the search carried out of ‘some other person’ i.e. third person/ party and assessing the same by invoking provision of section 147 instead of section 153C is unsustainable.
