Income Tax : Explore the proposed scheme for resolving unresolved tax demands, easing taxpayer burdens, and improving compliance through fair, ...
Income Tax : Faceless assessments in FY 23-24 raised Rs 43 trillion in tax arrears, sparking concern over the impact on India's tax ecosystem a...
Income Tax : Summary: Income additions by tax authorities due to discrepancies between a taxpayer’s declared income and the details in Fo...
Income Tax : Discover if the 20% pre-deposit for tax disputes is always mandatory or if there are exceptions. Learn about discretionary powers ...
Income Tax : The CBDT implements the interim budget's historic announcement of waiving old tax demands up to specified amounts for certain fina...
Income Tax : KSCAA Representation regarding adjustments (over and above 20% of disputed demand) by CPC despite assessments pending before first...
Income Tax : Grievances and suggestions with respect to the functioning of Demand Facilitation Center, CPC (DFC) in connection to the outstandi...
Income Tax : The Taxpayer can submit the response online to the outstanding demand by performing the below steps. 1. Go to the Income Tax e-Fil...
Income Tax : CBDT desires that all the work related to cleaning up of the tax demands and calculating the tax payable or refundable in respec...
Income Tax : Verify online notice/order issued by the Income Tax Department Now Taxpayer can verify notice/order issued by the Income Tax Depar...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the judgment from Madras High Court on G.K. Reddy's case against DCIT. Court rules pension cannot be attache...
Income Tax : Assessee had not been able to make out a prima facie case in its favour and had a ‘lot to answer’ in the appeal. Assessee's pl...
Income Tax : Delhi HC directs refund of Income Tax amount exceeding 20% of the demand. Read about the Max Life Insurance case and the decision ...
Income Tax : ITAT reversed the demand under Section 200A attributable to merely wrong mention of TAN in the TDS deposit challan...
Income Tax : Uptill AY 2016-17, if a scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the return is not required to be processed u/s 143(1) for grant of r...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 01 of 2023 by Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), exploring implications for income tax payers and their response...
Income Tax : ADVISORY NO.: 45 Dated:- 14.07.2022 0/o PCDA(0) Pune, Public Relation office (PRO) Subject: Income Tax Demand Notice under section...
Income Tax : Corrigendum to Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 16.10.2020 for exercising power of intrusive or coercive ...
Income Tax : The functionality of demand adjustment by AO u/s 245 can be accessed while passing assessment order, rectification order into the ...
Income Tax : As per the Central Action Plan issued for the F.Y. 2017-18, all pending appeals having tax effect of Rs. 50 crore or more are to ...
Pending demands & increasing litigation are mainly arising due to the certain administrative lapses. An attempt has been made to list a few such issues which need to be looked into.
This Note relates to the significance of the recent judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs Industrial Fin. Corpn. of India [2012] 346 ITR 11 (Guj), which deals with the interpretation of the provisions of section 281 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), relating to Certain transfers to be void. As per aforesaid judgement, section 281 of the Act,
It is a well-known fact that the Assessing Officers (AOs) in many cases make high-pitched assessments and raise huge uncalled for demands against the assessee, as a result thereof. It is also a well-known fact that after raising such uncalled for and unjustified high demands, the Revenue authorities take recourse to coercive measures for the recovery of such demands in a highly arbitrary and hasty manner. In such a situation,
It has been reported in some sections of the press that the Central Processing Centre , Bangalore is sending notices for payment of taxes which are as small as Rs. 1/- , 4/- , 6/-, causing unnecessary hardship to assesses . It has been stated that when the refunds for amounts less than Rs. 100/- are not issued by the Income Tax Department, then the demand for less than Rs. 100/- should also not be collected .
CBDT Sets-up a Committee to Examine And Suggest Ways to Recover Income Tax Demand Classified Under the Categories ‘Assessees not Traceable’ and ‘No Assets/Inadequate Assets for Recovery’ In order to examine certain suggestions on Income tax Demand classified under the categories ‘Assessees not traceable’ and ‘No assets/inadequate assets for Recovery’, a Committee has been constituted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) with following constitution
The government today informed the Supreme Court that it will set aside its order directing scam-hit information technology (IT) firm Satyam Computer to pay Rs 617 crore as income tax and will give a fresh hearing to the firm’s plea challenging the tax demand. Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, appearing for the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), told the apex court that it would recall its March 10, 2011, order, demanding Rs 617 crore in tax and decide afresh on the actual tax liability of Satyam Computer, now known as Mahindra Satyam.
The Income Tax Department has slapped a tax demand of over Rs 450 crore on software giant Infosys Technologies for wrongfully claiming tax exemption on onshore services by declaring them as software exports, Parliament was informed today.
British telecom major Vodafone today contested Rs 11,000 crore tax imposed by Indian authorities on its acquisition of Hutchison, saying it has no tax liability and will continue to take actions to defend itself. Vodafone International Holdings BV
The Court has made it clear that though there are no hard and fast rules regarding grant of stay, prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for and stay should not be granted as a matter of course. Considerations about balance of convenience, question of irreparable injury and implications to public interest have to be borne in mind
The assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09. Though the appeals were ripe for hearing and the appellate authority had already posted the appeals for hearing on different dates, the AO without considering the pendency of the appeals issued demand notices
