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...
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to consider the assessee’s Internal CUP benchmarking despite directions from the DRP. It directed fresh examination using the correct method and excluded certain NCDs from adjustment.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal without clearly pointing out deficiencies and allowing correction violates natural justice. It restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that entire purchases cannot be disallowed when corresponding sales are accepted. It upheld restriction of addition to profit element, preventing unrealistic income computation.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made merely on survey statements without rejecting books of account or providing proper opportunity. It deleted the addition for alleged underreported profit, emphasizing adherence to due process.
The Court condoned a 179-day delay and admitted the appeal on questions involving Section 263. It will examine whether the Tribunal erred in quashing revisionary action.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing Form 10-IC should not deny concessional tax benefits. It emphasized that substantive compliance prevails over procedural defects.
The Tribunal held that no double deduction was claimed as the provision was already added back in computation. The addition was deleted for being based on incorrect facts.
The Tribunal found that additions were made without considering joint ownership and without referring valuation to the DVO. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with proper verification.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10-IC does not invalidate the option exercised under Section 115BAA if declared in the return. It ruled that the requirement is procedural, not mandatory. The decision ensures substantive tax benefits are not denied due to technical lapses
Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
