Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of agricultural expenses based on estimation is unsustainable without concrete evidence, rul...
Income Tax : Understand the implications of receiving a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Learn how to respond, time limits, a...
Income Tax : Article discusses about Order which can be rectified under section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Rectification of Income Tax order ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Every taxpayer has to furnish the details of his income to the Income-tax Department. These details are to be furnished by filing ...
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 : Delhi HC held that the settlement consideration as received was liable to be recognized as capital gains and the same couldn’t p...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from p...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge th...
Income Tax : Rajasthan HC upholds penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits after withdrawals. ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
Gujarat High Court held that notice issued just two days before expiry of limitation and giving only one day time to provide the defence reply is unjustified as petitioner is not granted reasonable opportunity of being heard.
ITAT Delhi held that addition primarily on the basis of statements alone and no other corroborative evidence and that too without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the said persons is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Chennai rules no fresh assessment by CIT if AO chooses not to add on Income Tax. Deepika Subramanian’s appeal upheld against PCIT’s decision.
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of proper inquiry by AO which renders the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Bangalore held that PCIT duly invoked provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order was passed by AO without carrying out necessary enquiry/verification.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act doesn’t attract as unsecured loan availed was repaid in the next financial year through cheque payments to the creditor and bank statement thereof was filed.
ITAT Mumbai held that cost reimbursement received towards providing support services is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards lower commission charged by Jetair Pvt. Ltd. to Jet Airways (India) Ltd. on account of Online Reservation Commission by applying arm’s length price not sustained as the transaction was neither international transaction nor a specified domestic transaction and hence transfer pricing provisions doesn’t apply.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on Solar Power Plant installed on office building which is part of factory and electricity so generated is used for factory only is allowable as per provision of law.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years without bringing on record that escapement of income was occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all the material facts is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
