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 Mumbai held that initiation of revisional proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as AO has carried out enquiry on the issues, however, has failed to discuss the same in the Assessment Order.
ITAT Delhi held that payment received in the nature of Business Profit cannot be brought to tax in India in absence of Permanent Establishment in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act untenable as AO failed to conduct any investigation or enquiry in respect of information submitted by the assessee. AO also failed to conduct independent investigation and simply relied on third party statements and facts.
ITAT Mumbai held that re-computation of capital gains by considering the lower value of consideration for the sale of equity shares of the subsidiary company allowable as the genuineness of the same is proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that when the transaction is in the reimbursement of expenses to AE, the third party cost incurred is a Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) for the reimbursement. Accordingly, adjustment proposed is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is beyond jurisdiction as the amount is already declared as turnover and the said turnover is reflected in the books of account.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due dates is not allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the same is an incorrect claim and therefore it falls within the scope of prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Uttarakhand High Court held that issuance of notice by Commissioner (Appeals) mandatory in terms of section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act before enhancing the assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that while computing notional rent, rent should be estimated on the basis of municipal rateable value.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deprival of deduction u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act merely on the reasoning that deduction was claimed in the revised return or audit report in Form 56F was filed during the assessment proceedings is unjustified.
