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...
Orissa High Court held that while exercising suo motu revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act, the CIT cannot travel beyond the scope of the issues which form part of the ‘limited scrutiny’ in the original Assessment Order.
ITAT Delhi held that ESOP (Employees Stock Option) expense is allowable expense under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in computing the income in profit and loss of business or profession.
Orissa High Court held that when original re-assessment order was not passed validly, subsequent revisional order passed by PCIT is held to be invalid.
ITAT Amritsar held that mere typographical mistake in mentioning the balance of capital account doesnot amount to concealment. Accordingly, addition on account of unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore held that income from sale of developed flat, obtained under Joint Development Agreement (JDA), is to be treated as income from short term capital gain/ long term capital gain and not as income from business.
ITAT Mumbai held that distribution of samples of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods is prohibited under section 4 of Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992. Accordingly, the same is not allowable as business expenditure.
ITAT Chennai held that both the conditions u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act needs to be satisfied for initiation of re-assessment after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Here, as assessee has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts, re-assessment proceedings couldn’t be sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee going through resolution process has failed to comply with various notices issued by lower authorities. Accordingly, it is directed to give one last opportunity to present their case before AO. Assessee is also directed to pay the cost for being delinquent before lower authorities.
ITAT Hyderabad held that delay of 988 days in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned on the basis of vague reason.
ITAT Bangalore held that the amount paid by Google India Private Limited (GIPL) to M/s. Google LLC (US) towards seconded employees doesn’t come under the purview of FTS (Fees for Technical Services) or FIS (Fees for Included Services) under the Income Tax Act or under DTAA.
