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 : Understand the concept of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, its classifications, roles, responsibilities, and available tax be...
Income Tax : Simplified penalty timelines under Section 275 effective April 2025, including changes in penalty powers, omissions, and clarifica...
Income Tax : Stay on top of important compliance deadlines including GST, ESI, PF, SEBI, and Income Tax filings, with detailed due dates and fo...
Income Tax : Confused about the TDS rate on rent under Section 194-IB for FY 2024-25? Learn when to apply 5% or 2% based on the Union Budget 20...
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 : Learn about advance tax, who needs to pay it, due dates, payment methods, penalties, and exceptions. Understand advance tax instal...
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 : Bombay High Court clarifies reassessment under Section 147 of the IT Act in CIT-5 vs. Jet Airways, ruling in favor of the assessee...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses IT department's appeal in CIT vs. Infinity Infotech, ruling reassessment cannot expand beyond recorded reaso...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses IT appeal against Subhlabh Steels due to ongoing insolvency under IBC, citing SC ruling in Monnet Ispat. Rea...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC remands Lalitamba Pattina Souharda Sahakari Niyamita’s case to AO, questioning denial of Section 80P deduction on i...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Arvind Kumar Agarwal, allowing Section 10AA deduction despite late return filing. Tribunal highlights...
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 Indian government is set to introduce the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on February 13, 2025. This comprehensive...
The assessee-company initially filed u/s 139(1), a return supported by regular accounts, and showing substantial book profit and offering MAT. However thereafter its accounts came to be inspected by the Registrar of Companies who gave certain directions to modify its Annual Accounts. On the basis of those directions the assessee revised its profit and loss account and balance sheet which resulted in its income being negative. The corrected accounts were placed before the shareholders for their approval. Note no.7 of the Notes attached and forming part of the accounts was approved by the shareholders in the annual general meeting. The assessee however filed the revised return based on the revised accounts, showing a book loss, beyond the time limit prescribed in section 139(5).
It is a well-known fact that the Assessing Officers (AOs) in many cases make high-pitched assessments and raise huge uncalled for demands against the assessee, as a result thereof. It is also a well-known fact that after raising such uncalled for and unjustified high demands, the Revenue authorities take recourse to coercive measures for the recovery of such demands in a highly arbitrary and hasty manner. In such a situation,
(i) it will not be mandatory for agents of non-residents, within the meaning of section 160(1) (i) of the Income –tax Act, if his or its total income exceeds ten lakh rupees, to electronically furnish the return of income of non-residents for assessment year 2012-13; (ii) it will not be mandatory for ‘private discretionary trusts’, if its total income exceeds ten lakh rupees, to electronically furnish the return of income for assessment year 2012-13.
Very often the tax payer realises that he omitted to claim certain deductions, only long after he had filed the return. The circumstances would be such that the tax payer would not be even eligible to file a valid revised return.
The provisions of section 68 should be read in conjunction with section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has discharged the initial burden of proving identity, genuineness of transactions and also creditworthiness of the three creditors by producing their respective bank accounts. Entry in the pass book of a third party can be taken as a primary evidence in proof of the fact that loan was advanced by third party. Thus, the initial onus shifts onto the revenue to prove that the creditors lack creditworthiness and to come to such conclusion, the assessee cannot be asked to produce any evidence which is within the personal knowledge of the third party. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not examine the parties and proceeded on the assumption that creditors would not have saved any money to advance the loan. In the circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Accountant Member is in accordance with law. In other words, it is not a fit case to make addition under section 68.
A section of Media has reported that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has extended ‘due date’ of filing of returns to 31st August, 2012 in respect of only those returns which were to be e-filed by 31st July, 2012. It is clarified that the notification issued by the Board on 31st July, 2012 has extended the ‘due date’ of filing of all returns for the Assessment Year 2012-13 which were due to be filed by 31st July, 2012 to 31st August, 2012.
Government of India and Government of Principality of Monaco have signed a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) yesterday. The agreement was signed by the Minister of State for Finance, Shri S S Palanimanickam from Indian side and Counsellor of Government for Finances and Economy, Mr. Marco Piccinini from Monaco side. This is the ninth TIEA being signed by India.
CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 The council in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the regulations) on 10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries.
Undisputedly, the assessee has filed original return under sub-section (1) of section 139. In the said return of income, the assessee has not claimed the loss. Sub-section (5) provides that where the assessee discovers any omission or a wrong statement, then he can file a revised return. Where the wrong statement or omission results in the claim of loss, when the return filed under section 139(5) is to be considered or not, is to be now seen. Whether omission of such a claim of loss in the original return of income is bona fide or not is also to be seen.
AAR ruling should in the first instance be challenged before the High Court instead of directly in the Supreme Court. To avoid the matter remaining pending in the High Court for years, which would defeat the objective of enabling the applicant to get an expeditious ruling, the matter should be heard directly by a Division Bench of the High Court and decided as expeditiously as possible;
