The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return, when it was available before processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to amend the intimation and consider the audit report.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge to depreciation claims on leased assets after the Bombay High Court held that leasing constituted business use under Section 32. The ruling reaffirmed that physical use by the assessee is not necessary where assets are used in the leasing business.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand raised merely on differences between ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns without proper examination of records was unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Additional Excise Duty introduced from 11.07.2014 could not be imposed on goods manufactured before the levy came into force, even if cleared later.
The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The article explains all ITR forms applicable for AY 2026-27 and highlights key changes in capital gains, buyback taxation, and foreign asset reporting. It emphasizes selecting the correct form to avoid defective return consequences under Section 139(9).
An RTI application sought details regarding enrolment, certificate of practice, and practising status under the Advocates Act, 1961. The applicant also requested records relating to non-practising advocate classification and Bar Council verification procedures.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that depreciation on building assets was not charged in the financial statements in violation of Accounting Standard-6. The authority held that failure to report the non-compliance affected the true and fair view of accounts.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that material investment disclosures required under Schedule III of the Companies Act were omitted from financial statements. The authority held that the auditor failed to report the company’s statutory non-compliance under Section 143.
