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 PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years is impermissible where alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Since the notice violated Section 151, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that since the assessment was legally correct when passed, invoking Section 154 after a later Supreme Court decision was impermissible. The addition was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal held that alleged on-money addition based solely on third-party loose papers is unsustainable. In absence of independent evidence linking the assessee to unaccounted payment, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of ₹3.67 crore added as unexplained cash credit from Singapore art exhibition sales. It held that detailed export, remittance, and bank evidence fully established the genuineness and source of funds.
The Tribunal deleted ₹20,00,055 added as unexplained income after finding the transaction was based on mistaken identity. No evidence proved that the assessee received funds from the alleged shell company.
The Tribunal clarified that passing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is not a mere procedural defect. It held that participation in proceedings does not validate a void assessment.
ITAT ruled that without rejecting books of account or disproving sales, addition of aggregate cash deposits is unsustainable. Detailed reconciliations established nexus with business receipts.
Recognizing the 10% tolerance band as a beneficial amendment, the Tribunal applied it retrospectively. The ruling clarifies that minor valuation gaps cannot lead to artificial income additions.
ITAT upheld deletion of additions where assessment was framed under the wrong provision. Since the year fell within the block period of a non-searched person, Section 153C was mandatory.
