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 Ahmedabad held that transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only in respect of turnover of assessee-company relating to international transactions. In nut-shell, transfer pricing addition should be restricted only qua international transaction and not entity level transactions.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessing officer passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions of Sec. 144C(1) deserved to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act is only against the person in whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. Addition based on dumb documents without corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that where assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
In the case of Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, declaring the final assessment order void due to failure to comply with mandatory procedure u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai dismisses the Revenue’s appeal and allows bad debts declared as Non Performing Assets (NPS) before 01.04.2006 as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act for Abhyudaya Co-op Bank Limited for AY 2012-13.
In the case of Devender vs. ITO, the ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the farmer assessee, stating that no addition shall be made for cash deposited in a joint bank account by the second account holder.
ITAT held that approach adopted by NFAC merely because he granted relief in respect of one item of additions, does not mean that he can deny justice in respect of balance additions/grounds of appeal raised before him.
In the case of Sandeep Auraneebadkar vs. ITO, the ITAT Hyderabad partially deleted an addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act due to failure to explain credit card payments with supporting evidence.
ITAT Chennai held that rejection of special audit report of the special auditor appointed in terms of section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act on flimsy grounds without any finding as to how observation of the special auditor is incorrect.
