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...
Courts have held that once TDS is deducted from salary, the employee cannot be asked to pay tax again merely because the employer failed to deposit it. Recovery must be pursued only against the employer.
The tribunal held that assessment under section 153C cannot be initiated without seized material belonging to or relating to the assessee. Third-party statements and assumptions, without incriminating evidence, were held insufficient to confer jurisdiction
Delhi High Court held that an employee cannot be denied TDS credit due to the employer’s default in depositing deducted tax. The related demand and recovery were quashed.
The court addressed a demand arising from automated processing that led to double disallowance of expenses. It directed rectification through an amended return and stayed recovery until correction.
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.
