Income Tax : The Income Tax Act, 2025 replaces old reassessment provisions with Sections 279 to 286 and increases reopening timelines in certai...
Finance : The amended Finance Bill 2026 abolishes the Tax Recovery Officer’s power to arrest and detain taxpayers for recovery of dues. Th...
Income Tax : The article explains why advertisement expenses for brand building remain deductible under Section 37. Courts have consistently ru...
Income Tax : The article explains how Section 115BAE offers newly established co-operative societies a concessional 15% tax rate for manufactur...
Income Tax : The Income-tax Act, 2025 replaces old Sections 68 to 69D with a simplified sequential structure under Sections 102 to 106. The cha...
Income Tax : The issue was complexity in the existing tax law. It was clarified that the new Act simplifies structure by reducing sections and ...
Income Tax : This webinar breaks down the major structural and conceptual changes introduced in the new Income Tax Act, 2025. It helps professi...
Income Tax : The government informed Parliament that taxpayer-specific details of income tax searches cannot be disclosed due to confidentialit...
Income Tax : The Government clarified that the new income tax search provision does not expand powers or permit AI-based digital surveillance, ...
Income Tax : The representation highlights large-scale pendency and administrative bottlenecks under Sections 12AB and 80G, urging immediate re...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Pe...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : The Rajasthan High Court held that the benefit of Section 115BAA could not be denied when Form 10-IC was filed within the period p...
Income Tax : The Court held that the petitioner had no connection with the entities or individuals from whose devices the disputed material was...
Income Tax : The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) approved the company under Section 35(1)(iia) for scientific research ...
Income Tax : The government enforced a tax collection assistance agreement with Japan effective from 8 July 2025. The notification enables cros...
Income Tax : CBDT updated DIN rules to align with new provisions introduced under the Finance Act, 2026. The circular mandates DIN for most tax...
Income Tax : The CBDT introduced Form ITR-U to allow taxpayers to update previously filed returns. The amendment promotes voluntary compliance ...
Income Tax : The CBDT has substituted the ITR-V form to strengthen verification of electronically filed returns. The amendment enhances accurac...
The issue was whether delayed filing of return bars deduction under Section 10AA. ITAT held that timely filing was not mandatory for the relevant years and allowed the deduction.
The Court held that where corresponding sales are accepted, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 10% and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribunal held that due date depends on the class of assessee, not procedural lapses, and allowed Section 115BAA benefit.
Section 194T mandates TDS on partner payments with a strict April 30 deadline for March deductions. Missing it can lead to interest and expense disallowance.
The issue was reopening based on incorrect cash deposit figures exceeding ₹50 lakh. The Tribunal held actual amount was lower, making notice time-barred and invalid.
The case addressed whether additions can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. The Court held that such additions are impermissible in completed assessments, reinforcing settled legal principles.
The court examined whether a final assessment order could stand without issuing a draft order to an eligible assessee. It held that bypassing the mandatory draft assessment process invalidates the final order and renders it void.
The court examined whether reopening an assessment based on previously scrutinized facts was valid. It held that reassessment without fresh tangible material amounts to a change of opinion and is without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years is valid for small additions. ITAT held that without meeting the ₹50 lakh threshold under Section 149, the notice is void.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
