Avoid common AY 2026-27 ITR filing errors, including deadline confusion, capital gains mistakes, AIS mismatches, and missed e-verification.
Delhi High Court ordered Xiaomi entities to secure ₹272 crore because SEP implementers cannot continue exploiting standardized patented technology without furnishing interim security during FRAND disputes, even before final determination of infringement or royalty rates.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) after finding that payments were made to multiple labourers and no individual payment exceeded statutory limit. Tribunal accepted that bulk transfers were only administrative in nature.
The Delhi High Court held that one of the meetings relied upon for automatic vacation of the petitioner’s seat was convened without proper notice under Regulation 142. Consequently, the ICAI communication declaring the seat vacant was quashed.
ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional income cannot be brought to tax. The ruling relied on the principle that only real income is taxable.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violated Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for separate assessment proceedings for each year.
Fayaj Infratech Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeal) (Orissa High Court) In this case before the Orissa High Court, the petitioner challenged an order dated 1 September 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhubaneswar IV Circle, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods […]
The Court ruled that Explanation 1 to Section 153A requires inclusion of the search assessment year while calculating the extended ten-year reassessment period.
The High Court distinguished contracts of other government departments that contained clauses for reimbursement of new taxes and held that no such parity could be claimed in the present case.
The High Court held that adjustment of refunds beyond 20% of disputed tax demand during pendency of appeal was unsustainable without proper justification. It directed refund of the excess amount adjusted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.
