The income tax act defines Income tax and laws related to income tax. It covers income tax levy, collection, administration, and recovery. Income tax acts and income tax laws get changed/updated from time to time. Read our Latest News and Updated on the Income-tax act and Articles on the income tax act to understand the income tax act and its sections. Read our articles to understand income tax act section 10, income tax act section 24, income tax act section 54, income tax act section 80c, income tax act 44ad, income tax bare act, etc.
Income Tax : The issue was the complex and scattered TDS/TCS provisions under the old law. The new Act consolidates multiple sections into a si...
CA, CS, CMA : The update discusses GST rulings on ITC and refunds, income tax relief interpretations, and insolvency reforms. It also covers dis...
Income Tax : The ruling confirms that in matters of undisclosed foreign assets, the Black Money Act prevails over general tax provisions. This ...
Company Law : The Court held that anonymous political donations infringe voters’ right to information. The ruling mandates full disclosure of ...
Income Tax : This covers how business income is computed under the Income-tax Act, including normal and presumptive methods. It explains deduct...
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 : The exemption for disability pension has been preserved under the Income-tax Act, 2025 to maintain the relief previously available...
Income Tax : The Government clarified that the new income tax search provision does not expand powers or permit AI-based digital surveillance, ...
Income Tax : Govt. confirms no changes to the process of tax exemptions for STs in Meghalaya, clarifying no certificates are needed to claim ex...
Income Tax : Explore Income Tax Day 2024s history, significance, and key updates from Budget 2024-25, including enhanced deductions and revised...
Income Tax : The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after e...
Income Tax : The High Court held that courts must intimate the Income Tax Department when suits involve cash transactions exceeding Rs.2 lakh. ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that for an unabated year, additions under section 153A require incriminating material. A seized loose sheet and r...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated by a jurisdictional officer after faceless schemes became mandatory. The Tri...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that the AO had examined land records, crop sale documents, and other evidence before making the assessment. Si...
Income Tax : The Finance Act, 2026 prescribes income-tax rates, surcharge, and cess for the assessment year 2026–27. It establishes the legal...
Income Tax : The official copy of the Income Tax Act, 2025, is now available. Download the full text to review new tax rates, compliance rules,...
Income Tax : Summary of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025, covering new tax exemptions for pension funds and foreign investors, and chang...
Income Tax : Learn about the latest changes in Income Tax Rules, 2025. Key amendments include updates to ITR forms and provisions for capital g...
Income Tax : Notification 102/2024 designates Auroville Foundation as an approved institution for social science research under the Income Tax ...
Section 69 of Income Tax Act deals with the cases of unexplained investments which have been made by the assessee but not accounted for in his books of accounts if any maintained and for which no satisfactory explanation is offered by the assessee.
Notification No. 86/2010-Income Tax Whereas, an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the United Mexican States for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income was signed at New Delhi on the 10th day of September, 2007
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2010-TII-ITAT-MUM-INTL) dealt with the issue of whether passing of an order by the AO is necessary for filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for a declaration that no tax was deductible on such income. The Tribunal held that Section 248 of the Act does not require any order being passed by the AO as a condition precedent for filing an appeal before CIT(A) . Further, the taxpayer also fulfilled all the necessary conditions required by the provision of the Act. Therefore, the taxpayer was right in filing an appeal before the CIT (A).
The taxpayer, a manufacturer and exporter of chemicals had more than 97.5 percent of its sales to its associated enterprise (“AE”). It benchmarked the sales to AEs under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method based on the average price charged by the AEs to the customers. The Revenue observed that the non-AEs who purchased the chemicals paid a higher price and adopted the price charged to the non-AEs as the CUP. The taxpayer stated that the AEs operated in the insulation industry and that the non-AEs were in the aerospace sector, which also resulted in the difference in pricing. It also contended that the AE came into existence for the reason that its ultimate customers required long term warranties on the product and were more comfortable dealing with an American firm than directly with the taxpayer. It was also pointed out that the ALP determined by the Revenue turned out to be higher than even the price ultimately charged to the buyers by the AEs. It also stated that the sale to non-AEs were in small quantities and non-recurrent, which cannot be compared directly with the sales to the AEs. However, the Revenue rejected taxpayer’s contentions after considering various aspects concerning the comparability of sales to non-AEs including differences in turnover, quantity, customer profiles and geography. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the taxpayer and ruled that there was no case for the Revenue in making the adjustments and accordingly, the sales to the AEs were held to be at arm’s length.
Circular No. 7/2010 The Board has received various references from the field formations as well as members of public about the period of validity of approvals granted by the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax or Directors General of Income Tax under sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (via) of Section 10(23C) and by the Commissioners of Income Tax or Directors of Income Tax under Section 80G (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Notification No. 75/2010-Income Tax [F.No.203/152/2009/ITA-II), dated 11-10-2010. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Maharashtra Rajya Draksha Bagaitdar Sangh, Pune has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules. 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2010-2011 onwards in the category of ‘Other Institution’, partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-
The scope of wealth tax, which is currently levied on unproductive assets like jewellery, yacht and aircraft will be extended to productive assets like equity or preference shares held by an Indian company in its overseas subsidiary and interest in f
Notification No. 73/2010-Income Tax Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes) number
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
Once section 249(4)(a) is treated as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals) and once that condition stood satisfied at the time of his filing an appeal to CIT (Appeals), then, there was no necessity for the assessee to once again pay the admitted tax due as a condition precedent to his filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).
