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...
Penalty for delayed filing of tax audit report was quashed after illness of the managing director was proved. The tribunal held that medical incapacity constituted reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The dispute involved denial of indexed interest while computing long-term capital gains. The Tribunal ruled that interest incurred wholly for acquiring an asset is deductible under Section 48.
Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied without examining crucial evidence. The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and legal issues.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained as no genuine business need for holding large idle cash was shown. The tribunal upheld the Section 68 addition, stressing proof of necessity and cash retention.
While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revive the matter depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The issue was whether reassessment proceedings could continue when sanction was granted by an incorrect authority. The Court ruled that lack of approval from the designated authority vitiated the entire reassessment.
The Court held that adjusting refunds beyond 20% of a disputed penalty during a pending appeal violates CBDT instructions and ordered refund of the excess amount.
The Tribunal set aside an appellate order confirming a ₹1.38 crore addition after finding that it lacked merit-based reasoning. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with a speaking order.
The ruling held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the permissible period were legally unsustainable. The decision reinforces strict adherence to limitation provisions.
The issue was whether timely issuance was enough when notice was served after limitation. The court held that delayed service under section 143(2) invalidates the entire assessment.
