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 income tax department is bound to accept the authenticity of the accounts certified by the auditor and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Keeping in view that the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 permitting an individual to deposit to the maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in any of the specified schemes, the concerned authorities should take steps to amend clause 3 of the PPF Scheme in terms of section 80C of the Income-tax Act.
Central Government, having regard to seventy-five per cent of the average rise in the Consumer Price Index for the Financial Year commencing from the 1st day of April, 2007 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2008 for the urban non-manual employees, hereby specifies the Cost Inflation Index for the Financial Year commencing from the 1st day of April, 2008 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2009
CIRCULAR NO 7/2008-Income Tax Dated: August 1, 2008 In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that corporations which are established by a Central, State or Provincial Act for the welfare and economic upliftment of ex-servicemen and whose income qualifies for exemption from Income-tax u/s. 10(26 BBB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are hereby given exemption from Tax Deduction/Collection at Source on their receipts.
5. Even if this appeal is viewed with angle of section 15 of the Act, which speaks about chargeability of salary. Section 15 of the Act is reproduced- herewith:- “The following income shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “Salaries”- a). any salary due from an employer or a former employer to an assessee in the previous year, whether paid or not;
NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 752(E), DATED 28-3-2008 In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, (a) in rule 12, – (i) in sub-rule (1), for the words, figures and letters on the 1st day of April, 2007 or any subsequent assessment year, the words, figures and letters on the 1st day of April, 2008 shall be substituted; (ii) in sub-rule (5), for the words, figures and letters on the 1st day of April, 2006, the words, figures and letters on the 1st day of April, 2007 shall be substituted; (b) in Appendix-II, for Form ITR-1, Form ITR-2, Form ITR-3, Form ITR-4, Form ITR-5, Form ITR-6, Form ITR-7, and Form ITR-8, the following forms shall be substituted, namely:- The return of income has to be filed by using the applicable form without any annexure (except for Form ITR-7) so as to facilitate electronic filing.
CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
Interest paid on borrowings made for purchase of capital assets “not put to use” in the concerned financial year is eligible for income tax deductions, the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court said that all that was required is that the capital borrowed must be for the purpose of business for which interest was also paid. A bench of Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax department. The department had filed the appeal after the appellate tribunal and the Gujarat High Court had held that the assessee company M/s Core Health Limited was not entitled to deductions under Section 36(1) and (III) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
: A search and seizure was conducted by the revenue (respondents) in the premises of the appellants (KCC software Ltd), pursuant to warrants of authorization dated 3.8.2005. On 4.8.2005 certain assets including jewellery, cash and fixed deposit receipts were seized. On that very day, appellants received a letter from the HDFC Bank at B-28, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi that operation of five bank accounts of appellant No.1 had been restrained by order issued under Section 132 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The Income Tax Department on 4.10.2005 issued two fresh warrants of authorization under Section 132 of the Act in respect of the bank accounts. On 5.10.2005 the bank accounts of the appellants were searched and seized through withdrawal of cash by demand drafts.
Commissioner of Income Central vs Suresh N. Gupta On 17.1.2001 a search under Section 132 of the 1961 Act was carried out at the premises of the respondent-assessee , an individual. The search unearthed an unexplained investment of Rs. 65,000/- being the value of household valuables and Rs. 97,427/- on account of unexplained marriage expenses (undisclosed income). Accordingly, in the block assessment, the A.O. determined the assessee’s undisclosed income at Rs. 1,62,427/-. He computed tax thereon at 60% in terms of Section 113 of the 1961 Act amounting to Rs. 97,456/- on which surcharge was levied at 17%, i.e., Rs. 16,504/-. The levy of surcharge was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the CIT(A). The said appeal was allowed. The decision of CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Hence, this civil appeal.
