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 : ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68...
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 : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
Delhi High Court ruling on Income Tax: Department’s U-turn on 80IA deduction in the 4th year deemed unjustified. Case analysis of PCIT vs. BT Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd.
Learn about the ITAT Delhi decision in DCIT vs. Rapid Buildwell Ltd. case. NCLT moratorium impact on proceedings. Detailed analysis of grounds and outcome.
Karnataka High Court held that scrutiny notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Central Charge is sustainable in law and hence valid.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration received in terms of Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) cannot be termed as Royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA even if extensive services are rendered which includes access to written knowledge, processes, and commercial information in furtherance of the services.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an appellate authority can exercise the power u/s. 251(1)(a) to enhance the assessment only after giving a notice for enhancement. Accordingly, enhancement by CIT(A) without issuance of notice is untenable in law.
ITAT Mumbai upholds reassessment proceedings in Himanshu Manoranjan Bhatt vs ITO case. Sale and purchase of property not disclosed; addition of LTCG contested.
Explore ITAT Mumbai’s order on sundry creditors from bogus purchases. Learn about tax implications, sections 68 and 41(1), and the importance of accepted transactions.
Deduction under section 80IB (10) was allowable to assessee as it had a reasonable & bona fide cause for not filing the return of income within the time permitted under Section 139(1). Once in the given facts, assessee had been held entitled to claim the specifically computed deductions, then it should not be burdened with taxes which it was otherwise not liable to pay under law.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of purchases by treating it as bogus unjustified as the impugned purchases have been sold and the sales have been accepted as there cannot be any sale without purchases.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS when all sale deeds were registered and cash payment was made at one go before the sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deeds of plots. Hence, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
