The ITAT Bangalore held that where incriminating documents relating to an assessee are found during a search conducted on another person, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C and not under Section 143(3).
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271D if reasonable cause is established under Section 273B.
The ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under Section 271FAA cannot be imposed mechanically where delay in filing the correction statement of financial transactions (Form 61A) is caused by genuine technical and administrative difficulties.
The ITAT Bangalore held that once an Order Giving Effect (OGE) is passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254, the Assessing Officer cannot issue a second order for the same assessment year. The Tribunal declared the second OGE non-est and without jurisdiction, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals.
The Bombay High Court quashed Question No.73 of Circular 21/2020, holding that prosecution unrelated to tax arrear cannot bar settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The ruling clarifies that exclusion applies only to tax arrears linked to prosecution.
This article explains what qualifies as agricultural income under Section 2(1A), why it is exempt under Section 10(1), and how partial integration affects taxpayers with mixed income. It clarifies judicial interpretations and practical examples to prevent misuse and ensure correct tax treatment.
A leading bar body has raised concerns over critical Supreme Court observations while setting aside a bail order, stating such remarks can demoralize judges and impact judicial independence.
NSE has expanded the API-based single filing system to include key Regulation 30 XBRL disclosures such as fraud, restructuring, and buyback ISD filings. However, PDF filings must continue separately at both exchanges. Listed entities are advised to avoid duplicate submissions.
The Court held that individuals controlling sham firms can be treated as “taxable persons” under Section 122. Corporate structure cannot shield GST fraud.
Courts distinguish lawful tax planning from criminal concealment. Recent rulings stress commercial substance and strict penalties for evasion.
