Get all latest income tax news, act, article, notification, circulars, instructions, slab on Taxguru.in. Check out excel calculators budget 2017 ITR, black money, tax saving tips, deductions, tax audit on income tax.
Income Tax : Plan your finances before March 31 with this year-end tax checklist. Learn about old vs. new tax regimes, investments, deductions,...
Income Tax : Delhi HC ruled WGF Financial Services can't claim bad debt deduction under Sec. 36(1)(vii) as furnishing guarantees wasn't its reg...
Income Tax : Switzerland halts the unilateral application of the MFN clause under its tax treaty with India from 2025, following the Indian Sup...
Income Tax : Explore 151 FAQs on Finance Bill 2025, covering tax provisions, IFSC benefits, TDS/TCS, transfer pricing, and more for informed fi...
Income Tax : Compare GST and Income Tax search and seizure processes, highlighting key differences in scope, authority, and taxpayer rights. Le...
Income Tax : The Institute of Cost Accountants of India seeks inclusion of Cost Accountants in the definition of "Accountant" under Section 515...
Income Tax : Explore the Finance Bill 2025 highlights, including revised tax rates, TDS/TCS amendments, ULIP taxation, and updated rules for sa...
Income Tax : ICMAI addresses the non-inclusion of 'Cost Accountant' in the Income Tax Bill 2025. The Council is engaging with policymakers to e...
Income Tax : Lok Sabha issues corrigenda for the Income-tax Bill, 2025, correcting references, formatting, and legal citations. Read the key am...
Income Tax : KSCAA's representation to CBDT highlights challenges in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, focusing on delayed appeals and suggesti...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules on Nickunj Eximp case: Disputes over bogus purchases, demonetization cash deposits, and assessment procedures....
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court quashed a tax reassessment notice issued to Indus Towers Ltd. for AY 2009-10, citing procedural lapses and mi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai condones a 314-day delay in Atlantic Bio Medical Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal, citing a bona fide mistake in tax filing and a ri...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court rules that a jurisdictional assessing officer cannot override the faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that that mens rea is not an essential condition for imposing penalties under civil acts. Penalty u/s. 270A of...
Income Tax : Details of the Lok Sabha Select Committee's sittings on March 6-7, 2025, to examine the Income-Tax Bill, 2025, with oral evidence ...
Income Tax : CBDT updates income tax rules and forms for business and securitization trusts. Notification 17/2025 amends Rules 12CA & 12CC, imp...
Income Tax : Key updates on income tax deduction from salaries under Section 192 for FY 2024-25, including amendments, surcharge rates, and new...
Income Tax : CBDT extends the due date for filing Form 56F under Section 10AA(8) and 10A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to March 31, 2025, for...
Income Tax : The Central Government notifies Punjab RERA for tax exemption under Section 10(46A) of the Income-tax Act, effective from the 2024...
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The following two questions have been referred to the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee with reference to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
Admittedly, the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of I.T.O V/s M/s CMA CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on identical facts relied on by the ld. counsel of the assessee, quashed the order passed u/s 172(4) of the Act with the observation that the jurisdictional AO may verify the position and take such action as may be warranted in law in terms of section 172(7) to ensure that the income of the assessee from the various voyages does not escape assessment as per the normal provisions of the I-T Act.
In the instant case, the assessee denied incurring any expenditure for earning income, which did not form part of total income during the course of assessment proceedings even when huge investments were made by the assessee in the shares for having controlling interest . In terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income,
Conflicts are what make legislation difficult to understand and subject to multiple views. Though we are always seeking for decision from judiciary to guide us in clear manner but the same might come much later than what we expect. There exists conflict for a transaction under various legal frameworks like:
If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them
There is no cogency in the ground raised by the Revenue that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has not duly afforded adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions and evidences filed before him at the appellate stage. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has duly sent the documents furnished by the assessee at the appellate stage to the Assessing Officer for a remand report.
In the present case, the revenue authorities, sought to apply the statutory presumptions, as contemplated under section 132(4A) to the facts of the present case, without establishing the factum that the assessee was found in possession or control of any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing etc. In this specific context, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible, as to how the provisions of section 132(4A) are applicable to the facts of the case, without showing satisfaction of the statutory conditions precedent contained therein.
Assessee admittedly was having only one homogenous business activity that was construction and selling of flats. No doubt, it was having five projects, but the question is whether each of the projects were forming part and parcel of one unit or part of one industrial undertaking.
Now coming to the other aspect on the basis of which the AO disallowed the claim as to whether or not expenditure incurred as a result of compounding of violation of municipal laws & Environmental laws falls within the ambit of aforesaid explanation to sec. 37(1) of the Act, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 held that compounding of the offence cannot take away the rigors of the Explanation to S.37(1) in view of the expression ‘shall not be deemed to have been incurred’ used in that Explanation.
Whether the disclosure/admission of Assessee of taxing the income @ 8% when faced with detailed enquiry is a voluntary surrender and not liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act?”
