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 : Budget 2026 has extended the due dates for ITR-3, ITR-4, and revised returns, offering taxpayers greater flexibility. Understandin...
Income Tax : Relocating to Sikkim does not automatically exempt you from income tax. This article explains who qualifies under Section 10(26AAA...
Income Tax : The article outlines practical methods through which business owners and professionals can legally minimise their tax burden. It h...
Income Tax : Section 54 grants exemption on long-term capital gains from the sale of a residential house because the proceeds are reinvested in...
Income Tax : The Income-tax Act mandates e-payment of direct taxes for companies and taxpayers covered under Section 44AB, while others may opt...
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 : KSCAA requested the CBDT to release e-filing utilities and schemas for AY 2026-27 without delay, stating that pending utilities ar...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks...
Income Tax : The ruling emphasized that CAM charges remain separate transactions irrespective of whether payments are made to the same landlord...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that, apart from the CBDT clarification, the seller had declared the capital gains and discharged taxes. Therefo...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot apply where equity shares are issued upon conversion of CCDs without receipt of fres...
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...
The Tribunal held that a generic, non-specific satisfaction note and the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee-company rendered the Section 153C proceedings invalid from the outset.1 Consequently, the entire assessment, including additions for commission income, was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s legal ground, holding that the statutory requirement of prior approval under Section 153D was reduced to an empty formality. The ruling emphasizes that the approval must indicate due application of mind to the seized material and issues for each assessment year and cannot be a generic, consolidated format.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, asserting that once supporting documents are filed, genuine capital expenses like a boundary wall cannot be dismissed as bogus. The judgment confirms that only costs directly enhancing the asset’s value (like construction) are eligible as a cost of improvement, leading to the disallowance of security guard charges.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that suspicion alone cannot lead to an addition under section 69A, especially when sales records and VAT returns were furnished. The ruling confirmed that high cash sales were justified as per the Government’s notification allowing petrol pumps to accept demonetised notes.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai ruled in the case of Late Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani Vs ITO that a loan from one company to another, where a common shareholder holds less than 20% of the voting power in the borrowing company, cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal found the principles of natural justice were violated when the assessee, a villager unfamiliar with e-proceedings, was denied the opportunity to challenge the property’s stamp duty valuation and request a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Chennai ITAT ruled that a police canteen operating on the principle of mutuality is not carrying on ‘business’ under the Income-tax Act, making the mandatory tax audit provision of u/s44AB inapplicable, despite high turnover reflected in GST returns. The u/s 271 B penalty for non-filing was deleted.
The ITAT dismissed an assessee’s quantum appeal, confirming that a ₹10.42 Cr write-off for decommissioned windmills was a capital loss, not a revenue deduction. Since the trust offered this as business income, the ITAT held the only permissible treatment was adjustment in the block of assets.
The ITAT set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
