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...
Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates, and relevant judicial precedents.
Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Mansha Textiles vs ITO case. ITAT allows interest deduction u/s 24(b) when income is receivable and approved.
Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Unity Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT case. Penalty under section 271C not applicable if TDS non-deduction supported by Form 15G/H.
Standard Chartered Bank UK, challenged the validity of the reassessment order on the grounds of jurisdiction and non-consideration of crucial information provided in its response to the notice.
ITAT held that in view of non-cooperation on the part of the assessee before lower authorities for verification of it’s own documents/ claims cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the assessee to be deposited into Prime Minister Relief Fund.
ITAT Mumbai held that shares held as investment is taxable under capital gain. The same cannot be treated as business income on the ground that the assessee was participating in the business of JMMSSPL and had had transferred the controlling/business interest.
ITAT Delhi held that once a matter has been considered and decided by the ld.CIT(A), the very same issue cannot be the subject matter of consideration at all by PCIT in the revision proceedings either on substantive basis or on protective basis. Accordingly, revision order quashed.
ITAT Indore held that excess stock was not kept separately and was part of business stock cannot be treated as deemed income u/s 69 or 69B of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable on the surrendered income on account of excess stock found during the course of search.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from disaster recovery playout services and disaster recovery up-linking services are not in the nature of Fee for Technical Service (FTS) as envisaged under Article 12(4)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA(3) TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior to the date prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, in present case, TPO order passed on 30/01/2015 instead of 29/01/2015 is non-est and liable to be quashed as being barred by limitation.
