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...
Cash deposits were rightly taxed as unexplained money when the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. Absence of contemporaneous evidence defeats claims of redeposit of cash.
Supreme Court upheld the quashing of reassessment where scrutiny queries on deductions were earlier examined. It held that reopening based only on reappraisal of the same material amounts to an impermissible change of opinion.
The Court held that relief cannot be denied under Section 264 merely because a similar issue was earlier pending before the Supreme Court. The revision application was allowed as the issue was already covered by binding High Court rulings.
Madras High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of certain statement without considering documentary evidence is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ of revenue is dismissed.
The Delhi High Court rejected the Revenue’s transfer pricing appeals, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The ruling followed earlier decisions on identical issues for prior years.
The Court rejected the argument that goodwill payments amounted to prohibited fee sharing and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.
The Bombay High Court stayed the entire tax demand after finding that authorities taxed gross receipts without deducting expenditure. The ruling reiterates that only real income can be brought to tax.
The court examined whether delay in filing a revised return caused by an audit reporting mistake and COVID-19 disruption should be condoned. It held that the explanation was bona fide and directed authorities to process the revised return afresh.
The court examined whether reassessment for one year could be based on information from another year. It held that absence of foundational facts for the relevant year invalidates the notice.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated on vague and borrowed satisfaction. It held that absence of a live link between information and the assessee’s case invalidated the notice.
