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 High Court set aside the assessment after finding that the order was passed before the scheduled video hearing. The ruling underscores that granting a requested personal hearing under Section 144B is mandatory.
The ITAT ruled that once the assessee establishes the source of investment, addition for unexplained investment cannot survive. Direct payment by a financier through demand draft explained the transaction.
The case examined taxation of a charitable entity when registration under Section 12A was unsettled. While scrutiny selection was upheld, the assessment was remanded to await the outcome of registration proceedings.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot survive when the notice fails to specify the exact charge or applicable clause. A vague and routine penalty notice violates mandatory legal requirements, rendering the penalty invalid.
The case examined rejection of books under Section 145(3) and estimation of profits in a cold storage business. While rejection was upheld, arbitrary enhancement of rates and quantities was struck down, resulting in partial relief.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash can only be assessed in the year in which it is seized. An addition made in an incorrect assessment year is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The case addressed overlapping taxation of seized cash and disclosed unaccounted profits. The final ruling emphasized substance over form and deleted the addition by extending telescoping benefits to the partner.
Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that estimating profits at 1% was excessive and moderated it to 0.50%.
The dispute concerned enhancement of house property income based on an unsigned lease found during search. The Tribunal held that such a document has no evidentiary value and cannot support additions.
The tax authorities disallowed Bhandara expenses assuming a religious character without concrete evidence. The Tribunal held that mere suspicion cannot override the accepted fact of food being provided to the needy.
