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 held that once retail liquor sales were accepted and income estimated, cash deposits used for liquor purchases could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. The addition was deleted due to recorded business transactions.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The ITAT held that Section 43B applies even if interest is capitalised to work-in-progress instead of claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was justified in reducing WIP for unpaid interest to a Scheduled Bank.
ITAT Mumbai held that even a small stock discrepancy can attract Section 69A if unexplained. Lack of supporting evidence led to confirmation of addition.
Section 54F Deduction Remanded as Tenants’ Affidavits Suggest Commercial Use of Properties, No Addition Without Corroborative Evidence: ITAT Deletes ₹50 Lakh On-Money Addition in Property Deal and Presumption Under Section 132(4A) Cannot Be Applied Against Assessee When Documents Seized from Third Party
ITAT Mumbai deleted the Section 68 addition on LTCG from listed shares, holding that documentary evidence, STT payment, and banking trail were not disproved by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that payment for cement shortage during transport arose from contractual obligation and was compensatory in nature. As no statutory violation was established, deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years was invalid since the alleged escaped income, after considering bank loan evidence, was below ₹50 lakh. The notice under section 148 and final assessment were quashed as time-barred.
ITAT Mumbai held that fair valuation loss on principal-protected debentures linked to NIFTY Index is not a contingent liability. The loss was allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
