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.
The article explains how seemingly simple questions in ITR-1 can create major confusion for taxpayers. It highlights practical issues relating to tax regime selection, Form 10-IEA, and salary reporting.
The High Court held that GST on ocean freight under FOB contracts cannot be levied separately when the transaction has already suffered tax. The ruling extends the anti-double taxation principle beyond CIF contracts.
This article explains which companies must appoint Key Managerial Personnel under Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013. It highlights compliance thresholds, required positions, and governance obligations for listed, public, and private companies.
The ITAT Mumbai held that alleged accommodation entry operators cannot be taxed on the entire turnover amount. The Tribunal ruled that only the commission element embedded in such transactions, estimated at 1%, can be treated as taxable income.
The Tribunal reiterated that disbursement of funds to the debtor is an essential condition for financial debt. Since no money was advanced to the corporate debtor, the claimant was not a financial creditor.
