Income may become tax-free under the new tax regime because of the standard deduction and Section 87A rebate, but ITR filing may still be mandatory. Taxpayers must also consider income thresholds, specified transactions, and applicable due dates.
This article explains the key situations where filing an Income Tax Return is compulsory, even if income is below the basic exemption limit. It also highlights important thresholds relating to foreign assets, bank deposits, business income, and tax refunds.
This article examines why partial implementation of the RBI’s .bank.in initiative may undermine its objective of protecting banking customers from phishing and cyber fraud. It recommends comprehensive migration, stronger oversight, and transparent compliance by banks.
The Supreme Court observed that inadequate infrastructure in court complexes affects the dignity and professional participation of women advocates. It also endorsed consideration of a Young Lawyers’ Professional Assistance Fund to address financial hardship faced during the early years of practice.
This practical note explains how taxpayers and professionals can rely on the Bagga Vet Pharma ruling to challenge non-speaking GST orders. It highlights the importance of natural justice, reasoned adjudication, and proper consideration of taxpayer replies.
ITAT Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority prescribed under Section 151(ii). The reassessment order was declared void ab initio.
ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) was therefore allowed.
Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 without proof of statutory violations. The Tribunal followed binding precedent in the assessee’s own case and upheld its charitable status.
ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority prescribed by law. The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be invoked where shares were allotted at a premium to a 100% holding company. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition, finding that the transaction did not defeat the purpose of the deeming provision.
