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 dispute concerned how aggregate average advances should be computed for bad debt provisions. The Court held that cumulative month-end outstanding advances, not incremental lending, must be used.
Karnataka High Court held that revision petition u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act wrongly dismissed by holing that delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned since the revisional authority already condoned the delay.
The Delhi High Court held that a draft assessment order issued against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid. Such proceedings suffer from a substantive jurisdictional defect.
The Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the assessing officer failed to verify whether cash deposits were used to create a fixed deposit. The case was remanded for fresh consideration after proper examination.
The High Court set aside an order rejecting release of seized jewellery after finding it was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. The application was directed to be reconsidered by the proper assessing authority.
The Court held that reassessment was invalid where deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was lawfully claimed by a co-operative society. It ruled that interest from co-operative banks remains deductible when the assessee is not a co-operative bank.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Court ruled that expenses on replantation and upkeep are revenue in nature and eligible for deduction. It followed the Full Bench decision which overruled the earlier restrictive interpretation.
The court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC can be claimed simultaneously, subject only to an overall cap of 100% of business profits.
The High Court held that the tax department cannot deny set-off of short-term capital loss when the same claim was accepted in factually identical connected cases. Consistency in tax treatment was upheld.
