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 payment of IUC Charges is not Fee for Technical Services or Royalty within the meaning of its definition as per section 9(l)(vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Raipur held that there is no bar on an individual to join a partnership firm in his representative capacity of a firm being represented by him. In short, partnership firm can be formed by partners represented by their respective firms.
AO had applied his mind while doing the assessment therefore, the investigation by AO could not be called ‘lack of investigation’ and revision order passed under section 263 was quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from sale of software (i.e. copyrighted article) cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received by the assessee from providing SAP support services and IT support services is not covered within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not taxable in India in absence of permanent establishment.
Linklaters LLP Vs Asst Vs CIT (IT)-3(1)(2) Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that remuneration received for providing legal services doesn’t amount to ‘fees for technical services’, where the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, the same is not taxable. Facts- The assessee is a LLP incorporated under the laws […]
Madras High Court held that impugned assessment order passed without granting time despite of specific request from the petitioner is liable to be quashed and remanded back as against the principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions contained in section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in case of the trust created for the benefit of the members / relatives of the settler who have been identified as beneficiaries.
ITAT Hyderabad restore the issue to file of CIT(A)-NFAC as non-appearance before CIT(A)-NFAC due to unavoidable circumstance. Further, due to continuous non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by CIT(A)-NFAC, cost of INR 10,000 imposed to be paid to PM’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Chennai held that as cash deposited by assessee received from petty shop owners on account of sale of its product during demonetization period was not examined by AO during assessment. Accordingly, PCIT rightly passed revision order u/s 263 directing AO to carry out necessary verification.
