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...
The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can arise when income is added due to the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that a stamp duty valuation difference alone does not establish concealment, so penalty cannot be sustained
The Tribunal held that mere generation of surplus from activities does not convert a charitable trust into a business entity. The key issue is whether the surplus is applied for charitable purposes, requiring fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that entire bank deposits cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. Instead, where deposits relate to commission-based transactions, only a reasonable profit percentage (2% of deposits) should be taxed.
The Tribunal ruled that without rejecting the books or identifying concrete discrepancies, expenses cannot be disallowed on an ad-hoc basis. The Revenues appeal challenging deletion of the addition was therefore dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that while selecting the comparables transactions or entities, in case of international transactions, the basis should be one of similarity with the control transactions/entities and mere broad similarity is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court quashed the reassessment for being based on a change of opinion, the additions made in those proceedings could not survive.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed after DRP directions is still subject to revision under Section 263. It held that there is no statutory bar preventing the Principal Commissioner from revising such orders.
