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...
The Court held that rejection of a lower withholding certificate without reasons violates Rule 28AA. It remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a speaking order.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. Addition was deleted as AO relied only on suspicion without evidence.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse. It restored the matter to the AO to verify and allow Foreign Tax Credit if eligible.
The High Court held that interest under Section 234B must be waived where conflicting judicial decisions created uncertainty regarding tax exemption. The rejection of the waiver application was set aside.
The Court condoned a 179-day delay and admitted the appeal on questions involving Section 263. It will examine whether the Tribunal erred in quashing revisionary action.
The Supreme Court has admitted a case to resolve conflicting interpretations of due dates for PF/ESI contributions. The ruling will impact deduction claims and pending disputes.
The court held that an appeal under Section 260A cannot be entertained when it merely seeks re-appreciation of evidence, upholding the addition confirmed by lower authorities.
The High Court set aside the assessment order after noting that it was passed ex parte and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings with an opportunity for the assessee to file a return.
The Madras High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where a DTAA claim was made based on a bona fide interpretation of law and full disclosure of income.
The High Court set aside a tax demand issued under Section 156 because it was not based on any assessment or reassessment order. The ruling held that a demand notice cannot exist without a prior order determining tax liability.
