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 Court quashed assessment and appellate orders for denying exemption on technical grounds. It emphasised that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment and must rectify errors.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 143(2) issued by an ITO without jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 was invalid. The assessment was declared void ab initio, making the Revenue’s appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal ruled that exercising an option to convert warrants into shares does not amount to transfer under Section 2(47). Since no consideration was received and shares were not sold, no capital gain arose.
The Tribunal held that deposits received from members of a registered cooperative society cannot be treated as unexplained credits when supported by books and member-wise records.
ITAT Pune held that failure to deposit the entire amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme does not defeat Section 54F claim if full investment is made within the stipulated period. The ruling follows Karnataka High Court precedent. The addition of ₹91.45 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that requirement of Form no. 3CL for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from AY 2016-2017. Accordingly, denial of claim for pre-amended period is not justifiable. Thus, appeal is allowed.
The Bombay High Court held that a lender’s certificate under Section 24(b) is not required for let-out properties assessed on actual rent. Reassessment beyond four years was invalid as there was no failure of disclosure or fresh tangible material.
The Tribunal held that actuarially valued provisions mandated by law constitute application of income under Section 11 and cannot be disallowed merely due to absence of cash outflow.
ITAT Hyderabad held that failure of the Assessing Officer to examine ownership of multiple houses while allowing Section 54F deduction made the order erroneous and prejudicial. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court quashed an assessment order passed without granting personal hearing despite a written request. It held that refusal on technical grounds violated principles of natural justice.
