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...
The Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) has been amended with effect from 1st October 2009 to provide that any gift-in-kind, being an immovable property or any other property, the value of which exceeds Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), will become taxable in the hands of the donee, being an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family […]
Notification No. 74/2009 & Notification No. 75/2009 – Income Tax Section 120(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 196I (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that Chief Commissioner specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having his headquarters at the place specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Schedule, shall exercise the powers and perform the functions in respect of such territorial area
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
The application of 15 per cent rate of tax on the amount shown in the return of income would not fall under the category of determination of tax payable on the returned income on the basis of return of income under section 143(1) when the assessee had categorically stated in the note enclosed with the return of income that the returned income was not in the nature of `royalty’
The fact involved in the present case is that the assessee is a branch of Samsung Electronics Co Company Limited, Korea, engaged in the development, manufacture and export of software for use by its parent company, i.e., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Korea. The assessee develops various kinds of software for telecommunication system for office appliances, for computer systems and for mobile devices etc.,. The software developed by the assessee is for in-house use by the parent company.
Due to the fact that most of the establishments are virtually closed on account of festivals of Durga Pooja, Navratra’s and Dussehra, representations were received from members all over the country posing the difficulties faced by them in preparing and filing the return of income by due date. Hence, ICAI has made a representation to […]
Notification No. 70/2009 – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), vide S.O. 1281(E) dated the 27th July, 2007, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
During the course of survey on 05.11.2004, the assessee had agreed to the addition of Rs. 14.06 lakhs on a/c of difference in stock and Rs.0.49 lakhs as difference in cash in hand (total Rs. 15.34000) This addition has accordingly been made in the net profit subject to non-initiation of penalty and prosecution proceedings as stipulated in me statement recorded during survey.
The appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs.14,28,400/ – in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs.9,67,412/ -. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression used for the purposes of the business as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section 32,
