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 issue was whether reassessment can proceed without furnishing recorded reasons despite a taxpayers request. The Tribunal held that failure to supply reasons is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates reassessment.
The issue was whether income disclosed during survey and duly reported in the return can attract penalty under Section 270A. The Tribunal held that when returned income equals assessed income, penalty provisions do not apply.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond six years is invalid without a recorded satisfaction of undisclosed assets exceeding ₹50 lakh. The takeaway is strict compliance with the fourth proviso to section 153A is mandatory.
The reassessment relied entirely on allegations arising from a search on another entity. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot survive without independent evidence directly linking the assessee.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
This ruling clarifies that an assessee can be treated as an agent of a non-resident only if income is received directly or indirectly for the NRI. In the absence of such receipt or business connection, representative assessment fails.
The Tribunal examined whether prior approval under Section 153D was granted after due application of mind. It held that mechanical and routine approval invalidates the assessment, rendering the search assessment void.
The Tribunal ruled that completion of assessment after search, despite statutory abatement, is impermissible. Jurisdiction shifts exclusively to Section 153A proceedings.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the education cess claim after a retrospective amendment. A bona fide claim made on prevailing judicial views does not amount to under-reporting or misreporting.
The issue was an appellate order passed with facts, year, and income of another assessee. The Tribunal held the order void and directed a fresh decision in the correct case.
