CA, CS, CMA : A comprehensive guide covering 175 legal compliances for July 2026 under FEMA, Income Tax, GST, SEBI, Companies Act, Labour Laws, ...
Income Tax : The Income-tax Act does not prescribe a single definition of "relative" for all purposes. Different provisions such as Sections 13...
Income Tax : Understand when 1% TDS applies on purchase of immovable property under Section 194-IA. Learn the Rs. 50 lakh threshold, compliance...
Income Tax : This guide explains when NRIs should use Form 128 and when payers should use Form 129 to reduce or eliminate excess TDS. It also c...
Income Tax : The article argues that Section 58(3) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 does not independently mandate books of account or tax audit for...
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 : Madras HC set aside cognizance under the Income-tax Act, holding Section 223(1) BNSS mandates hearing the accused before cognizanc...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed a Section 148 notice, holding that a seized inquiry register without a live nexus to the assessee cannot justif...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed Section 148 reassessment as it was issued beyond Section 149 limitation, holding Section 152(3) applies to sear...
Income Tax : Madras HC held that merely issuing a corrigendum acknowledging the return did not rectify the defective assessment process and ord...
Income Tax : CBDT has approved a scientific research institution under the Income-tax Act, 2025 for tax years 2026-27 to 2030-31. The notificat...
Income Tax : CBDT has approved the University of Hyderabad for scientific research under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 2025. The approval i...
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...
This ITAT Rajkot decision clarifies that when an assessee establishes a clear nexus between past bank withdrawals and subsequent demonetisation cash deposits, the high tax rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable. The Tribunal, citing a Gujarat HC judgment, deleted the entire addition except for a 5% estimated profit to balance revenue interest and taxpayer evidence.
After the High Court rejected the capital gains argument, the Tribunal applied Section 14 to classify the receipt from the trusteeship surrender. Since the amount did not fit into any specific head of income (Salary, Business, or Capital Gains), the ITAT ruled it must be taxed under the residuary head, Income from Other Sources.
The ITAT deleted additions in a search assessment, ruling that the AO couldn’t disallow depreciation or sub-contract expenses solely based on an unverified third-party statement without granting the assessee cross-examination. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of natural justice and reliance on suspicion cannot replace documentary evidence, such as bank payments and TDS.
The ITAT confirmed that even where technical jurisdiction exists (i.e., abated years), high-pitched additions must be examined on substantive merits, finding the AOs reliance on conjecture and arbitrary estimations unsustainable. This judgment serves as a strong precedent that mere jurisdiction under Section 153A doesn’t grant a license for evidence-less or double taxation.
The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
Madras High Court held that petitioner has placed on record sufficient evidence proving financial capability of partners for capital contribution. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back for reconsideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed since donation was given to Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust whose approval expired on 31.03.2006. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
The ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that once the capital gains deductions (Section 54EC/54F) are substantially allowed in the quantum appeal, there’s no concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that filing a belated return within Section 139(4) does not automatically invalidate a genuine deduction claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
The ITAT ruled that interest on enhanced compensation for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is fully exempt from income tax, citing Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that this special law overrides the general tax provisions (Sections 56 and 145A), deleting the entire Rs.97.44 lakh addition.
This Income Tax appeal addressed whether a 5% infrastructure fee should be deducted based on gross bills or actual cash receipts. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower authorities decision, emphasizing that the expenditures deduction must strictly follow the contractual clause, which explicitly linked the 5% payment to total receipts, thereby restricting the allowable deduction.
