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 ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
The Court ruled that an assessee cannot invoke Section 139(8A) after initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 143(2). It affirmed the disallowance of deductions and held that appeal is the proper remedy.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
PCIT s revision under section 263 against assessee was upheld holding that AO did not properly verify the very low Section 14A disallowance despite huge exempt income and also ignored INSIGHT portal inputs about alleged accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that once satisfaction is recorded under Section 153C, assessment for covered years must proceed strictly under that provision. Framing assessment under Section 143(3) was declared jurisdictionally invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed using the final stamp value determined after litigation, not an earlier inflated valuation, and directed deletion of the resulting addition.
The Court held that Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB does not expressly permit addition of Section 14A disallowance, leading to dismissal of the Revenue s appeal.
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of political donation deductions where the assessee failed to prove genuineness and the transactions were linked to suspected accommodation entries. The ruling reinforces the burden on taxpayers to substantiate claims under section 80GGC with credible evidence.
The tribunal held that an appeal cannot be rejected merely due to a clerical mistake in mentioning the wrong section in Form No. 35. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, reinforcing the duty of appellate authorities to adjudicate substantively.
