Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of agricultural expenses based on estimation is unsustainable without concrete evidence, rul...
Income Tax : Understand the implications of receiving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Learn how to respond, time limits, a...
Income Tax : Article discusses about Order which can be rectified under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Rectification of Income Tax order ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Every taxpayer has to furnish the details of his income to the Income-tax Department. These details are to be furnished by filing ...
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 : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge th...
Income Tax : Rajasthan HC upholds penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits after withdrawals. ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the condition of make available was not satisfied for services when provided by assessee did not enabled the ...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information f...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
ITAT Mumbai held the goodwill arising on business reorganization i.e. amalgamation, slump sale, demerger etc. is a depreciable intangible asset under section 32 of the Income Tax Act.
Reassessment notice issued under section 148 on the ground that how a newly incorporated company could command a significant share premium, was purely hypothetical and lacked tangible evidence and that could not be a tangible material for arriving at reason to believe escapement of income.
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Delhi’s order in Cameron (Singapore) vs ACIT case. Learn why management support fees are not considered FTS under India-Singapore DTAA. Get insights on grounds, TDS credit, interest, and penalty.
In a crucial judgment, Calcutta High Court dismisses the appeal against the ITAT decision, upholding the quashing of CIT’s order speculating understatement in closing stock without specific findings. Learn the key details and legal analysis.
ITAT Mumbai held in Supertech Construction Company Vs ACIT that penalty notice lacked clarity on grounds for penalty & penalties cannot be levied on additions made on Estimated Bogus Purchase Addition.
Midway Exim Pvt. Ltd. appeals against ITAT Delhi’s order upholding the addition of Rs 8.18 crores u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal challenges the reassessment proceedings, notice issuance, and provides detailed analysis on share application money.
In a significant decision, ITAT Delhi quashes assessment order in Rajender Agarwal Vs ACIT case, citing abatement under Section 153A after a search. Detailed analysis of the legal arguments and implications.
Read the full text of ITAT Delhi’s order in Orient Clothing Co. vs. ACIT. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted due to vague notices. Analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act on Pawan Kumar for loan repayment via bank transfer, challenging jurisdiction and citing legal grounds. Full text of the order included.
Sunil Dandriyal vs JCIT case underscores significance of understanding the correct starting point for calculating the time limit for penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The decision reinforces the principle that the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO, rather than the issuance of a show-cause notice by the JCIT, triggers the commencement of the statutory time limit.
