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 Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
The tribunal held that a purchase cannot be treated as bogus solely based on third-party allegations. Without independent verification by the Assessing Officer, the disallowance was held unsustainable.
The tribunal held that amounts already disclosed and taxed as accommodated receipts cannot be taxed again under another head. Separate additions were deleted as they resulted in impermissible double taxation.
The tribunal held that interest earned on savings bank deposits is attributable to the business of providing credit to members. Such incidental bank interest qualifies for full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The case examined whether commission paid to overseas agents attracts TDS and disallowance. The Tribunal held that services rendered abroad are not chargeable to tax in India, nullifying Section 40(a)(i).
The issue was whether reopening based only on portal information is valid. The Tribunal held that absence of independent inquiry and tangible material vitiates reassessment and nullifies the addition.
ITAT Surat held reassessment invalid where notice u/s 148, though dated 31-03-2021, was issued on 01-04-2021 without following s.148A procedure; entire reassessment quashed.
The dispute examined whether loan interest used to buy virtual digital assets could be deducted. The ruling held that such interest forms part of cost of acquisition and is allowable despite Section 115BBH restrictions.
