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...
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
The High Court set aside a tax demand arising from foreign tax credit mismatch because no valid intimation under Section 143(1) was produced or served. It held that recovery cannot be enforced without mandatory service of notice of demand.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority exceeded jurisdiction by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the deemed dividend addition on merits as raised in appeal.
The Court ruled that an assessee cannot invoke Section 139(8A) after initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 143(2). It affirmed the disallowance of deductions and held that appeal is the proper remedy.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that reassessment beyond three years requires sanction under Section 151(ii). Notices issued with approval from the wrong authority were invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval under Section 151(ii). Notices issued with approval from the wrong authority were set aside.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s plea and affirmed that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines.
The High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines. ITAT’s demand of TCS, interest, and penalty was set aside.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to factual disputes. In absence of jurisdictional defect, the matter must be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer.
Once the Central Government notified the Faceless Scheme for reassessment (effective March 29, 2022), the JAO was effectively divested of the power to issue notices under Section 148. The issuance of a notice by a JAO instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was a jurisdictional error that could not be cured.
