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 : The article clarifies that the CBDT's 4 June 2026 instruction governs six categories of compulsory manual scrutiny and is distinct...
Income Tax : The article explains how India's Place of Effective Management (POEM) rules may treat a foreign company as an Indian tax resident ...
Income Tax : From 1 April 2026, TDS and TCS compliance shifts to new form numbers and section references under the Income-tax Act, 2025. Busine...
Income Tax : Understand who must undergo a tax audit under Section 44AB, the applicable turnover limits, audit forms, filing procedure, due dat...
Income Tax : Income may become tax-free under the new tax regime because of the standard deduction and Section 87A rebate, but ITR filing may s...
Income Tax : Net direct tax collections for FY 2026-27 grew by 14.64% as of June 17, 2026, driven by higher corporate and non-corporate tax rec...
Income Tax : The CBI apprehended an Income Tax Office Superintendent in Odisha after he was allegedly caught accepting a bribe for deleting a d...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has proposed a priority disposal mechanism for appeals filed up to and including 2022 in respons...
Income Tax : A representation has urged CBDT to merge TDS return codes 1023 and 1024, arguing that both apply to the same contract payments wit...
Income Tax : Association requested CBDT to rationalize CASS 2026 case selection considering the administrative burden caused by implementation ...
Income Tax : The Pune ITAT refused to condone a 661-day delay in filing an appeal against rejection of Section 12AB registration. It held that ...
Income Tax : The Pune ITAT deleted a ₹10 lakh addition after finding no reliable evidence that the assessee paid cash while purchasing a flat...
Income Tax : The Tribunal distinguished between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry, holding that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely becau...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that rejection of Section 12AB registration merely because no expenditure was reflected in the financial statem...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that loss of an old Section 12A registration certificate is only a procedural deficiency and cannot by itself j...
Income Tax : The CBDT has identified specific categories of taxpayers whose returns will be compulsorily selected for complete scrutiny during ...
Income Tax : The Ordinance exempts interest income and capital gains arising from Government securities for Foreign Institutional Investors and...
Income Tax : The Central Government has specified infrastructure sub-sectors from the Updated Harmonised Master List as eligible businesses und...
Income Tax : CBDT has granted scientific research approval under the Income-tax Act, 2025, enabling eligible donations to qualify for tax benef...
Income Tax : CBDT has granted scientific research approval under the Income-tax Act, 2025, allowing eligible donations to qualify for tax benef...
1. Changes in ITR 1 Applicable for A.Y. 2018-19 This from has been made applicable only for resident individuals. Conditions: Income from salaries, one house property, other income and having total income up to Rs.50 lakhs and his total income should not include any income from betting, gambling, etc. There is a requirement to furnish a […]
Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has deleted penalty u/s 271B in the case of Dr. Shantanu Datta in I.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2017 as there was a bona fide belief entertained by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the requirement of section 44AB.
Principal CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in […]
It is one of the most time-honoured and cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party (adversary) should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, we repeat, unless and until there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis.
It has come to the notice of the Board that at many places, where High Court Benches are functioning, no High Court Cell has been set up. The bench-wise position of various High Courts with respect to setting up of High Court Cells is as per Annexure-A. High Court Cells should be set up immediately at all places where the Bench of High Court is situated.
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
DCIT Vs M/s DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) In this case since there was no reason at all for reopening the case on the issue of treatment of royalty expenses ,since the same had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, before the recording of reasons for reopening the present case. […]
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted an enduring advantage to a particular assesseeIt is nobody’s case that assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services.
