The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer changes his opinion on the same material. The Court reaffirmed that reassessment requires tangible material showing escapement of income.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
This article explains the tax treatment of partner remuneration and interest for Partnership Firms and LLPs under Section 35(e). It covers allowable limits, working partner conditions, deed requirements, and common compliance mistakes.
The Income Tax Department has launched Form No. 188 for online approval of Gratuity and Superannuation Funds from Tax Year 2026-27. The new system replaces the earlier text-based filing process with a fully digital procedure through the e-Filing portal.
This article explains how Safe Harbour Rules under the Income-tax Act, 2025 interact with APAs, MAP provisions, and transfer pricing assessments. It highlights compliance obligations, MAP forfeiture risks, and transaction-specific protection from TPO scrutiny.
ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of evidence. The AO was directed to re-examine all supporting documents before passing any adverse order.
The ITAT ruled that generation of surplus and project-based contractual arrangements do not automatically convert environmental conservation activities into commercial ventures. The Tribunal directed grant of Section 12A registration after finding the activities genuinely charitable.
The ITAT observed that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act differs from ordinary interest under Section 34 and forms part of enhanced compensation. Therefore, taxation provisions relating to interest income were held inapplicable.
Mumbai ITAT upheld ₹10.76 crore addition after rejecting selective identification of physical shares for capital gains computation. The Tribunal termed the arrangement a “colourable device” to suppress taxable gains.
The Tribunal held that the charitable trust mistakenly filed Form 10AB under an incorrect clause of Section 12A due to a bona fide error. ITAT directed the CIT(E) to permit correction of the application and reconsider registration on merits.
