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...
ITAT ruled that reassessment made pursuant to a quashed Section 263 order has no legal basis. Subsequent additions cannot stand once the revision itself is annulled.
With the Section 50C addition and 54F disallowance deleted, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. It emphasized that penalty cannot stand when the underlying additions are removed.
ITAT ruled that revisionary powers cannot be invoked on vague suspicion. Where identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are documented and examined, Section 263 cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal clarified that Goetze (India) does not bar appellate authorities from entertaining new claims. Where all facts are on record, the claim must be examined on merits.
Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal ruled that additions sustained purely on profit estimation cannot trigger penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Clear evidence of concealment is mandatory for penalty.
While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification. Other legal grounds were treated as academic.
ITAT held that additions relying merely on investigation wing reports and retracted statements, without direct incriminating evidence, violate settled principles governing Section 153A proceedings.
Since the investment was examined and accepted in scrutiny proceedings for AY 2015–16, the Revenue could not re-characterize the cost during the sale year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld full LTCG exemption.
The Tribunal ruled that undated, unsigned loose sheets lacking independent evidence cannot justify additions under Section 153A. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it deleted additions exceeding ₹2.10 crore for want of corroboration.
The Tribunal held that where disallowance was accepted and taxes paid during revision under Section 263, penalty under Section 270A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and penalty deleted.
