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 : Ensure tax compliance before March 31, 2025. Key tasks include filing returns, verifying TDS, updating accounts, and making necess...
Income Tax : Partnership firms must comply with new tax rules from April 1, 2025. Changes include higher partner remuneration limits and mandat...
Income Tax : Learn about TDS on payments to non-residents, including business connection rules, royalty provisions, and significant economic pr...
Income Tax : Discover key changes in the Income Tax Bill 2025, including enhanced rebates, simplified trust provisions, and extended registrati...
Income Tax : Section 194T mandates 10% TDS on partner payments exceeding ₹20,000 annually, effective April 1, 2025. Learn its impact, complia...
Income Tax : India's direct tax collections for FY 2024-25 show a 13.13% net growth, with gross collections up by 16.15% and significant gains ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues clarification on Circular 01/2025, stating it applies only to the Principal Purpose Test in certain DTAAs and does not...
Income Tax : Corporate tax collections increased post-rate cuts. No specific tax incentives for MNCs, but new measures aim to support electroni...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Bill 2025 aims to simplify tax laws with no major policy changes. It enhances clarity, reduces ambiguities, and ali...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill 2025 projects a 12.65% rise in income tax collections despite tax cuts, with estimated receipts of ₹25.20 lakh ...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act entirely based on course of survey not sustainable...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad upholds deduction of GST interest & late fees, ruling they are compensatory, not penal. Read the key observations &...
Income Tax : Madras High Court rules in A.R. Safiullah Vs ACIT, quashing a tax notice under Section 153A for AY 2009-10, citing statutory limit...
Income Tax : ITAT Visakhapatnam sets aside penalty on Malla Appalaraju under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice, ruling it void ab ini...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules on Radiant Life Care's appeal against disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Key interpretation o...
Income Tax : CBDT issues FAQs on revised guidelines for compounding offences under Income Tax Act, 1961. Covers filing procedures, fees, compet...
Income Tax : Finance Ministry specifies Power Finance Corporation Ltd.'s ten-year zero coupon bond with Rs. 49,546 discount, for Income-tax Act...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk transaction case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA p...
Income Tax : Learn about high-risk CRIU/VRU case verification, assessment, and proceedings under Sections 148/148A on the Insight and ITBA port...
Income Tax : Learn about suspected benami, undisclosed foreign assets, and TDS compliance cases assigned under Risk Management Strategy via the...
Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) -Whether CIT(A) has erred in confirming the dis-allowance of Rs. 7,93,34,193/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has filed Form No. 15J with CIT on 26.02.2009 instead of on or before 30th June, 2006 in as much the there is no failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C since the assessee has received Form No.15-I from the sub-contractors before making payment to them. Held , No The decision on deductibility of tax on payment made to sub-contractor is to be taken at time when contractor is releasing payments to sub-contractors and it is at that point of time second proviso to section 194C(3)(i) would come into play and when Form No. 15-I are submitted by sub-contractors to contractor, then contractor is not required to deduct tax from such payments, whereas compliance of third proviso can be deferred till 30th June of next financial year.
These cross appeals are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively. The appeals arise out of the assessments made under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. As they involve some common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
P A Chacko Muthalaly Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- If the approvals of the technical services have not been granted, obviously then assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80RRA. The Tribunal cannot go beyond its scope to hold that CBDT was not correct in refusing the permission for which assessee could have taken appropriate steps before the Honourable High Court. In the light of this discussion we are of the view that assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80 RRA.
Mitsutor Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee was owner of the premises in which it was carrying on business. The assessee paid maintenance charges to the society of Apartment Owners. According to the AO the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payment of maintenance charges to the society as the payment by the assessee to the society was in the nature of contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 194C was applicable.
ITO Vs Millenium Writing Products Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is available to an assessee whose gross total income includes any profits and gains derived from eligible business as specified in the section. Here the assessee is claiming deduction on an item of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of employees’ contribution to PF, which was not deposited within the due date. This is neither an item of profit or gain of eligible business nor an item of Profit & Loss Account or manufacturing account rather it is just an employees’ contribution to PF, which assessee has to collect from its employees and to deposit with the PF authorities within the due date prescribed.
The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by ld. CIT(A) in the matter of assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2006-07.
M/s Maitri Developers Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Project completion method is well recognised method as per AS-7. Under project completion method entire project as a whole is to be seen and hence transfer of some flats via registration is not conclusive of the year in which the income attributable to the project is to be taxed. Completion certificate is also not conclusive of the fact that the project was completed when the facility of drinking water shows it otherwise.
ITO Vs Maharashtra State Co-operative, Consumers Federation Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) -Whether CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/ – made by the AO under sect ion 41(1) of the Act . Assessee is an AOP being the Apex body of consumers co-operative societies in the State of Maharashtra. Its business is divided in 8 Divisional Offices and 13 Apna Bhandars which are retail out lets of federations. The federation is Semi – Government body sponsored and fully supported by the State Government federations.
DCIT, Baroda Vs Liberty Phosphate (ITAT Ahemdabad)- It was not in dispute that in respect of an another building at Udaipur, this assessee itself has capitalised the expenditure. However, the impugned repairs were in respect of an another factory building situated at F-227, Mewar Industrial Area Udaipur, wherein the company has carried out manufacturing of Fertiliser; namely, Single Super Phosphate. One of the ingredients of the said fertiliser is stated to be sulphuric acid.
Jyoti Traders Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai )- In our view the conditions precedent for passing an order u/s.142(2A) of the Act directing the Assessee to get its account audited by a special auditor viz., the satisfaction of the AO having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue, that is necessary get the assessee’s account audited by a special auditor is not fulfilled in the present case and therefore the reference to special audit is held to be invalid.
