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 Pune held that the conclusion arrived by AO on his satisfaction of details furnished by the assessee, cannot be found to be erroneous simply because Pr. CIT does not feel satisfied with the said conclusion. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unjustified.
ITAT Pune held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 sustained as AO failed to apply proper and correct section of Income Tax Act to the investment in the undisclosed stock.
ACIT Vs Hotel Ishika (ITAT Raipur) ITAT Raipur held that the interest expenditure corresponding to the advances that was given in the normal course of business could not have been disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Facts- Post completion of original assessment, as is discernible from record, the A.O on the basis […]
ITAT Raipur held that amount received as a consequence of divorce from the ex-husband could not be held as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, and accordingly cannot be brought to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act.
ITAT Guwahati held that submission of documents proved the identity of the creditors, however, genuineness of the transactions is not proved. Matter set aside for fresh consideration.
ITAT Jaipur held that there cannot be a second round of penalty for same defaults. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act for second time is unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income generated by the assessee cannot be held bogus only based on the modus operandi. To hold income earned by the assessee as bogus, specific evidence has to be brought on record by the Revenue. In absence of any specific finding, assessee cannot be held to be guilty.
ITAT Cochin held that benefit of deduction of 7.5% of the total income is available to co-operative banks under clause (viia) of section 36(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education (MSBTE) would fall under the definition of state as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of sales reversal entry alleging the same as unexplained expenditure is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
