HC directed CBDT to issue a circular extending due date for filing income tax returns to 30th November 2025, especially for taxpayers required to file audit reports for assessment year 2025-26, in line with extension of specified date to 31st October 2025.
ITAT rules that “hardship compensation” received by a flat owner from a builder during society redevelopment is a capital receipt, not taxable income. It adjusts the cost of acquisition.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment (AY 13-14, 14-15) as AO missed the Rajeev Bansal-mandated “surviving limitation.” S. 149 prevails over S. 148A procedural timelines.
Understand how interest under the Income Tax Act is calculated, including Sections 234A–234D, 244A, and Rule 119A mechanics for taxpayers.
The Tribunal confirmed a co-operative banks use of a mixed accounting system (mercantile/receipt basis) for NPA interest, prioritizing consistency and adherence to RBI/NABARD prudential norms over the AOs theoretical objection. This ruling solidifies that regulatory requirements trump mechanical accounting changes.
Use a Gold Loan Calculator to estimate your maximum loan amount based on gold purity, weight, and RBI’s LTV ratio. Check eligibility before applying for a secured gold loan.
The ITAT deleted additions in a search assessment, ruling that the AO couldn’t disallow depreciation or sub-contract expenses solely based on an unverified third-party statement without granting the assessee cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of natural justice and reliance on suspicion cannot replace documentary evidence, such as bank payments and TDS.
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
The ITAT deleted the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for a one-day delay in depositing employees PF contribution. The ruling held that the delay was due to a technical failure of the EPFO portal, not the taxpayers fault, successfully invoking the doctrine of impossibility over the strict ruling in Checkmate Services.
The ITAT confirmed that even where technical jurisdiction exists (i.e., abated years), high-pitched additions must be examined on substantive merits, finding the AOs reliance on conjecture and arbitrary estimations unsustainable. This judgment serves as a strong precedent that mere jurisdiction under Section 153A doesn’t grant a license for evidence-less or double taxation.
