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 Delhi High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue decided issues. The Revenue failed to show any apparent error in the earlier direction to process returns.
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal distinguished cases of jurisdictional defect and upheld the assessment where the initial notice was lawfully issued. The key takeaway is continuity of valid scrutiny proceedings despite AO change.
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed when financial statements were not called for despite the taxpayer’s willingness to furnish them. The court set aside the notice, holding that lack of proper opportunity vitiated the reopening.
The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such amendments cannot reopen concluded assessments.
The issue was denial of income-tax exemption to a statutory welfare board. The Court held that a subsequent government notification granting section 10(46) exemption resolved the dispute and nullified the pending tax demand and penalty.
The Tribunal held that the case transfer under section 127 was invalid as it was passed by a non-jurisdictional authority. Since jurisdiction itself failed, the entire assessment was declared void ab initio.
The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without furnishing recorded reasons despite a taxpayers request. The Tribunal held that failure to supply reasons is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates reassessment.
The Tribunal examined whether prior approval under Section 153D was granted after due application of mind. It held that mechanical and routine approval invalidates the assessment, rendering the search assessment void.
