Income Tax : Practical guide to tax audit under Section 44AB for trader assessees, covering groundwork, data analysis, compliance checks, and f...
Income Tax : Summary of the judgement About the assessee The assessee is a limited liability company engaged in the business of manufacture and...
Income Tax : Deduction of TDS and Taxability of the same; An Analysis of section 198 and 145 of Income tax 1961. As per basic understanding, th...
Income Tax : Self assessment - The assessee is required to make a self assessment and pay the tax on the basis of the returns furnished. Any ta...
Income Tax : ♦ Section 145A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ‘145A. Method of accounting in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything to the contra...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that once cash sales are recorded in books and included in declared turnover, separate addition of deposits wou...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)s detailed order deleting additions based on proper verification of evidence. All gro...
Income Tax : While noting deficiencies in supporting evidence, the ITAT found that entire addition of ₹50.90 lakh was not sustainable. The ad...
Income Tax : Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that e...
Income Tax : Additions based on survey-time valuation of machinery were deleted as the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account....
It was ruled that under-reported revenue cannot be inferred solely from service tax data when no defects are found in regularly maintained books. Income must be assessed on real income principles supported by enquiry and evidence.
The ruling explains the procedural outcome when a section 263 order is set aside. Original assessment appeals are restored, while appeals from consequential orders are dismissed as infructuous.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was held outside the scope of Section 10(37). The Tribunal clarified that only compensation qualifies for exemption, not interest.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of bad debts claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is not justifiable if offered as income in any year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify that amount for which bad debts have claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) were indeed offered as income for the said years.
The issue was whether rejection of books and enhancement of gross profit were justified due to alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal upheld partial relief, holding that GP estimation must be reasonable and supported by facts, not solely by procedural lapses.
The Tribunal considered whether disallowance under section 14A was justified merely because exempt income was earned. It ruled that without corresponding investments in the assessee’s books, section 14A cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that mere facilitation of third-party payments to an associated enterprise does not constitute a service. As no value addition was involved, applying a markup on reimbursements was found unsustainable.
The issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
