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 held that reassessment initiated solely on the basis of an audit objection, without any independent application of mind, is invalid. Such reopening lacks the mandatory reason to believe and cannot sustain in law.
The Tribunal held that revision under section 263 was invalid where the MAT adjustment arose mechanically from a transition amount already examined in an earlier year, and no fresh error was shown.
Failing to report transporter details in your quarterly TDS return was a procedural error, not a tax deduction failure. Since assessee was not liable to deduct tax (thanks to the declarations), Section 40(a)(ia)—which applied only when tax is deductible but not deducted—could not be invoked.
The AO treated loan substitution via group restructuring as an accommodation entry. ITAT ruled that repayment by a holding company backed by bank trails and confirmations cannot be taxed as unexplained credit.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when statutory notices were issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal held such notices invalid and quashed the entire assessment.
The case involved share capital raised at a high premium based on unexecuted projects and circular fund routing. ITAT held that failure to prove creditworthiness and genuineness justified addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal assessed compliance with revised reassessment provisions post Finance Act, 2021. It ruled that sanction by a lower authority after three years is non-est in law, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
CIT(A) remanded a completed scrutiny assessment even after the AO accepted additional evidence in remand. ITAT ruled this exceeded statutory powers and restored the case to CIT(A) for a merits-based decision.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when the scrutiny notice was not issued in the CBDT-prescribed e-format. The Tribunal held the notice invalid and quashed the entire assessment as void.
The issue was whether screen-based stock exchange trades can be ignored due to alleged exit providers. The Tribunal ruled that non-response of buyers and weak financials of counterparties do not invalidate genuine exchange-routed transactions.
