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 : Explore how new tax rebate under Section 87A allows individuals to avoid tax on incomes up to Rs 12 lakh. Learn through illustrati...
Income Tax : The introduction of Section 194O in the Income Tax Act, 1961 for e-commerce transactions, has created certain overlaps with Sectio...
Income Tax : Finance Bill 2025 limits tax loss carry-forward under Section 72A to 8 years from the original assessment year. Learn about its im...
Income Tax : Learn about Section 40(b) limits on partner remuneration and the introduction of Section 194T for TDS on remuneration, effective A...
Income Tax : Budget 2025 has brought significant simplification in the tax treatment of house properties, particularly for self-occupied proper...
Income Tax : CPC (TDS) reminds deductors to file TDS Statement 26Q for Q2 FY 2024-25. Late/non-filing may attract fees and affect TDS credit fo...
Income Tax : Union Cabinet has approved the new Income Tax Bill 2025, aiming to simplify and modernize India's tax system by replacing the 1961...
Income Tax : CBI registers case against 9, including Deputy Commissioner, 2 Inspectors, and 5 CAs, for sabotaging Faceless Tax Scheme; searches...
Income Tax : India's tax arrears stand at ₹47 lakh crore as of Dec 2024. CBDT & CBIC are taking steps, including asset identification, litiga...
Income Tax : India decriminalizes minor direct tax offenses to ease compliance. New measures include litigation management, compounding guideli...
Income Tax : Supreme Court examines "first offence" definition under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in the Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria case....
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai ruled that brokers facilitating land deals are not liable under Section 269SS as they act on behalf of clients and do...
Income Tax : Telangana HC upholds tax addition under Section 69A, ruling that the assessee’s land was not under cultivation, rejecting agricu...
Income Tax : Supreme Court confirms that Section 153C notices issued without a valid satisfaction note are invalid, aligning with the Delhi Hig...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court rules on Section 153C notices for AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 in Dev Technofab Limited Vs DCIT, citing lack of incrimi...
Income Tax : Bhaikaka University, Gujarat, is approved for scientific research under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective f...
Income Tax : Notification No. 14/2025 updates Form 49C submission rules for liaison offices under the Income-Tax Act. Filing deadline set to 8 ...
Income Tax : CBDT amends Income-Tax Rules, 1962, updating regulations for Infrastructure Debt Funds, including investment criteria, bond issuan...
Income Tax : CBDT authorizes data sharing with DFPD to identify PMGKAY beneficiaries. MoU to govern data confidentiality, transfer mode, and ti...
Income Tax : BILL No. 14 OF 2025 THE FINANCE BILL, 2025 (AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA) THE FINANCE BILL, 2025 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES ______ AS IN...
Lions Club of Calcutta Hastings Vs DIT (Exemption)- (ITAT Kolkata)- In the present case no show cause notice has been issued to the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this contention of the lad that the provisions contained in section 293C of the Act enables the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax to withdraw approval. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove are of the view that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in withdrawing approval once granted because the Legislature in all its wisdom has sought to omit this proviso to section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and after omission of the said proviso, the approval once granted shall continue to be valid in perpetuity unless and until a show cause notice is issued by the concerned CIT showing his intention to withdraw already granted such approval.
Southern Metals & Alloys Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- The assessing authority had asked for details in respect of various creditors and in respect of the above stated trade creditors. The assessee had not furnished any particulars before the assessing authority. No confirmations were made by creditors also. On an examination of the records of the case, we find that even though the assessing authority had initiated the process of verifying the genuineness of the trade creditors, he has not brought that process to a logical end.
Notification No.124/2011 – Income Tax Whereas by notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number S.O. 1111(E), dated the 8th August, 2005, issued under sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government had notified at serial number 2, “Comprehensive rehabilitation, medical & human resource development services for the blind and disabled” by Blind People’s Association, Jagdish Chowk, Surdas Marg, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad
R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)- The matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act.
Udyog Bharati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the first place it was not necessary for the appellant to file a cross-objection. As already noted, the assessee had raised an alternative contention of exemption under Section 11 of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in view of his opinion that the benefit of Section 10(23) of the Act is required to be granted, did not examine this alternative contention on merits. In that view of the matter, when the Revenue had carried the CIT(A)’s order before the Tribunal, it was open for the assessee to support the order on all grounds including those which may not have been accepted or examined by the CIT(A). For this purpose, cross-objection was not necessary. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not entertaining such cross-objection on the ground of delay, to our mind, would not be fatal to the assessee’s contention. It is clarified that if the Revenue’s appeal before the Court is entertained further, it would be open for the assessee to support the orders in its favour on all grounds.
ACIT Vs. Kannappan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai)-The Tribunal found that the expenditures were not incurred for setting up of any business or initiating an expansion programme. The expenditures were incurred as a measure of value addition and for competing in the market. There was no basic improvement in the fundamental character of product already manufactured and processed by the assessee. It was in the light of those findings, the Tribunal has held that the disputed expenditures were in fact revenue in nature.
ACIT Vs. L&T Western India Toll Bridge Ltd (ITAT Chennai)- It was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums.
In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs. Similarly, for the assessment year 2002-03, the Revenue has assailed the deletion of Rs.5,11,494/-. The tax effect here is also less than Rs.3 lakhs and even below Rs.2 lakhs. we are of the opinion that Circular No.3/2011 of CBDT will apply and due to low tax effect, the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. There is no case for the Revenue that the issue involved has got any cascading effect over other years or on the assessments of any group of which assessee is a part.
Shri A.S. Bindra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the assessment order, it has been mentioned that due to non-availability of evidence, the assessee has offered this amount as his income. That fact cannot go against the assessee in penalty proceedings as the assessee will be having right to contest the levy of penalty independently, apart from the findings recorded in the assessment order. Therefore, the relevant evidence is admitted as additional evidence and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for readjudication of the penalty proceedings after due consideration of the evidence being placed by the assessee on record. After giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and placing evidence on record, the AO will re-adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty or otherwise in accordance with law. We direct accordingly.
Income-tax Act Benefit u/s. 47(xiv) of the cannot be denied in case there is a delay in allotment of shares to the proprietor on conversion of a proprietary concern into a company
