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...
ITAT Raipur held that addition upheld by CIT(A) without passing a speaking order in the backdrop of documents uploaded by the assessee. Accordingly, matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment order as void because the final assessment was completed by an Income Tax Officer (Ward-2) who lacked jurisdiction, while the proceedings were initiated by another officer (Ward-3). The Tribunal, citing the Allahabad High Court, ruled that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by participation.
he ITAT restricted a S.69A addition on ₹1 crore cash deposits, ruling that treating the entire gross receipt as unexplained income was unjustified for a commission agent. Considering the low-margin onion trading business and past assessments, the Tribunal estimated 4% of the deposits as the correct taxable commission income.
The ITAT confirmed the penalty levy, ruling that a subsequent rectification order allowing carry-forward losses doesn’t affect the penalty base. Penalty is tied to the tax evaded on the additions confirmed by the appellate body ( crore), not the final assessed income.
The ITAT ruled that filing a revised return does not restrict interest entitlement on the amount claimed in the original, timely filed return, citing the Gujarat High Court. Interest must run from April 1st of the assessment year on the bulk refund, with the later date applying only to the incremental claim.
The ITAT Chennai upheld the quashing of a reassessment for AY 2017-18, ruling the u/s 148 notice invalid. As more than three years had elapsed, u/s 151(ii) required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT), confirming the jurisdictional defect.
The ITAT ruled that the AO and CIT(A) erred by mechanically raising a default demand simply because commission was paid to a non-resident. The Tribunal stressed that full compliance evidence (Form 15CB, Form 27Q, DTAA analysis) must be examined before classifying the assessee as a defaulter.
The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling the CIT(A)’s rejection of agricultural income based solely on bank deposits not tallying bill-to-bill was arbitrary and illogical. Once the genuine agricultural activity was accepted, timing differences or cash accumulation must be considered.
The ITAT deleted a capital gains addition, ruling that the use of an individual’s PAN during a property sale cannot legally override clinching documentary evidence proving ownership by an HUF and a Trust. Legal ownership (Will, sale deed, bank receipts) prevails over a mere technicality.
The ITAT confirmed the revision, ruling the AO’s failure to restrict the deduction to the DSIR-approved amount in Form 3CL was an error contrary to the amended law, causing prejudice to the revenue. Post-2016 amendments make this verification mandatory.
