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 issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer having no jurisdiction over the assessee and consequent assessment made u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is void and bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that rejection of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method for valuation of share price unjustified as that the methodology adopted was a recognized method of valuation and the Revenue was unable to show that the assessee adopted a demonstrably wrong approach.
Delhi High Court held that amount received from subscription of e-journals cannot be treated as royalty as right in respect of copyright to the concerned subscribers not granted. Hence, the same is not taxable in India.
ITAT Pune held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from the investment with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT has held in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO that when there is no variation in the returned and assessable income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable.
Discover the details of the ITAT Kolkata ruling in the case of India Industrial Mission Vs DCIT regarding the delay in filing Form 10B and the implications for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.
The tribunal observed that the liability to pay the Customs Duty had crystallized during the relevant year, as the company could not fulfill its export obligation. Therefore, the deduction of the Customs Duty was allowable in the same year. The ITAT Chennai cited Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for statutory dues in the year of payment, irrespective of the accounting method followed by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata held that making the addition for under valuation of closing stock for not adding making charges specifically for the year under appeal cannot be held to be justified unless and until corresponding adjustment is made for the opening stock. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, de novo adjudication ordered as CIT(A) didn’t rendered any finding on merits.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court have upheld the Judgment of ITAT wherein it was observed that the tax residency certificate is sufficient to determine the proof of residency and the income-tax authorities cannot ignore the valid tax residency certificate issued by the Government authority of the other contracting state, that is, Singapore.
