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 Ranchi deleted a ₹10.42 lakh addition on cash deposits during demonetization, holding they were explained from prior bank withdrawals.
Chennai ITAT rules in favor of a taxpayer, deleting a ₹2.26 lakh bonus disallowance after a new CA certificate confirmed an error in the original audit report.
Ahmedabad ITAT overturns a tax disallowance of Rs. 6.78 lakh in cash deposits, accepting a farmer’s claim of income from agriculture, transportation, and family savings.
ITAT Delhi directs the exclusion of the Rs. 84.95 lakh Transfer Pricing adjustment from the Book Profits (u/s 115JB), citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. that the AO cannot tamper with the net profit determined under the Companies Act, except for specified adjustments.
Mumbai ITAT allowed Mahindra & Mahindra’s appeal, holding that advertisement and sales promotion expenses of ₹3.26 Cr for ‘Mahindra Parts Plazas’—which were owned and operated by distributors—were revenue in nature and deductible under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, rejecting AO’s capitalization.
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.8.43 Cr addition u/s68. Assessee proved lenders’ identity, PAN, and bank transfers. Suspicion over creditworthiness cannot replace evidence.
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.50,000 penalty under s.272A(1)(d), ruling COVID-19 hospitalization was a reasonable cause for non-compliance to multiple notices issued in quick succession.
CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed appeal alleging no submissions; ITAT noted documents were filed and directed fresh consideration, upholding principles of natural justice.
The ITAT Nagpur condoned a 489-day delay and, on merits, deleted an addition of ₹20,32,500 made under Section 69, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide substantive evidence or corroboration that the investment was made in the relevant assessment year, A.Y.
The ITAT Raipur set aside penalties under Section 271(1)(c) levied on Sai Baba Sansthan for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, remanding the matter to the NFAC. The Tribunal held that the penalty’s survival is contingent upon the NFAC upholding the quantum additions on a de novo adjudication, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents.
