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...
Upholding the appellate order, the Tribunal ruled that section 68 applies only to credits of the relevant year. Opening balances and prior period adjustments cannot be taxed as unexplained income in a subsequent year.
The issue concerned valuation of royalty for bundled services. ITAT held that faulty comparables vitiated the CUP analysis and ordered fresh benchmarking.
The tribunal held that where the Assessing Officer conducted exhaustive enquiries and applied his mind in a 153C assessment, revision under section 263 is invalid. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 is part of compensation and not taxable as other income. A reopening based on such misinterpretation was quashed for lack of valid belief.
The Tribunal held that Section 54B requires purchase by the assessee himself. Investment in agricultural land in the wife’s name does not qualify for deduction.
The Tribunal distinguished cases of jurisdictional defect and upheld the assessment where the initial notice was lawfully issued. The key takeaway is continuity of valid scrutiny proceedings despite AO change.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The issue was whether a flat 12.5% disallowance on alleged bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal ruled that when sales are accepted and books are not rejected, only a lower, reasonable estimation can apply, capping it at 5%.
