Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Arjuna (Fictional Character): Krishna, Can the Return under GST be revised? Krishna (Fictional Character): Arjuna, There is no any concept of revised return under GST. So, under GST, no amendment can be made in the return once it is filed. Arjuna: Krishna, What the taxpayer should do if any mismatch occurred in sales after filing […]
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 26th March, 2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,72,940/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Aggarwal Associates and Jainco Group of cases and their relatives on 19.10.2011.
As a self-employed professional with your own chartered accountancy practice, your needs are sure to be varied from that of a salaried professional, especially when it comes to finance. Apart from planning finances for your personal life, you will also need to ensure that your business has sufficient funds to operate smoothly and successfully. In […]
This bunch of appeals for AY 2013-14 are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the Act).
Where the cars were used by the society for its work of school, and these cars were used for various purposes, such as, liaisoning with DIOS and CBSE Board, etc, such contentions had not been refuted with any cogent evidence, by AO therefore, no disallowance was to be made.
Where no return was filed by assessee within statutory mandated time and the obligation to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice was issued for such purpose under section 153A(1)(a), such return would be deemed to have been filed within the time permitted under section 139(1) and benefit under section 139(3) could be availed of by assessee.
The raising of monetary limits at various appellate FORA in legacy Central Excise & Service Tax matters as a measure towards reduction of Government litigation has been in sharp focus in the past few months.
Addition made in the income u/s 69B on account of failure of assessee to substantiate the excess stock found at his premises was not justified as the excess stock came on account of sale price taken by Department and since inception of assessee-firm, it was valuing inventory on average cost method/weighted cost price which was verifiable from the statement of accounts appended to Return of Income thus, a method of accounting / Valuation adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly could not be discarded by the departmental authorities.
It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has resigned from the directorship of the company in question, the petitioner would not incur a disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act. Consequently, the disqualification of the petitioner as notified in the lists dated 6thSeptember, 2017 and 12th September, 2017 by the respondent no.1 was incorrect and illegal.
Article explains Compulsory Filing of Income Tax Return Sec 139(1) with relevant due dates, Late Filing Penalty for Income Tax Return under Section 234F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Prosecution Proceedings for Late Filing of Income Tax Return under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
