Mumbai ITAT held that Section 69A cannot be invoked where loan transactions are fully routed through banking channels and recorded in regular books of account. The Tribunal deleted the addition despite Revenue alleging the transactions were accommodation entries based on third-party search material.
Stock audits are fundamentally different from statutory audits and must be treated as special purpose assignments. The article explains how this classification impacts scope, reporting, ethics, and auditor liability.
SEBI is increasingly focusing on AI-powered investment advisory and research platforms in India. The article explains why fintech firms and registered advisers remain legally responsible for AI-generated financial recommendations.
Rising global debt, inflation, and gold narratives are creating anxiety in corporate boardrooms. The article explains why finance professionals must distinguish evidence-backed risks from speculative market predictions.
Tamil Nadus rising debt is not just about borrowing but about decades of recurring deficits and welfare spending. The analysis highlights why only six surplus years in two decades raise concerns over fiscal management.
Bangalore ITAT held that applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected on grounds of non-compliance when the assessee had already submitted replies before the ITO as directed. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh consideration after finding the rejection contrary to records.
The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate caused the delay in filing appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive an assessee of an opportunity to contest major additions on merits.
The article explains the legal requirement for organisations with 10 or more employees to establish an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act. It highlights employer obligations, inquiry procedures, and penalties for non-compliance.
The article explains how taxpayers often wrongly assume that housing loan loss benefits remain available under the new tax regime. It highlights important differences between old and new regime treatment in ITR-1.
The Bangalore ITAT ruled that once substantive addition under Section 2(22)(e) is sustained in the managing partners case, the corresponding protective addition in the firm’s hands must be deleted. The ruling clarifies that protective assessments are only temporary safeguards.
