Income Tax : Understand Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act covering interest on late filing, short payment, delayed adva...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Understand how interest under the Income Tax Act is calculated, including Sections 234A–234D, 244A, and Rule 119A mechanics for ...
Income Tax : Interest under Section 234B cannot be levied on Section 115BBE-assessed income for resident senior citizens exempt from advance ta...
Income Tax : A look into why taxpayers face interest charges under Sections 234B and 234C, exploring how Section 210, a provision for official ...
Income Tax : Request to CBDT to permit filing of Form 10IC after expiration of time limit by condoning delay Issuance of Order under Section ...
Income Tax : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : At the end of May the Income Tax Return forms are released for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and same been held back by finance mini...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib)....
Corporate Law : The Rajasthan High Court held that the enhanced 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be imposed on income relating to FY 2016-...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that transfer pricing adjustment was not justified where the foreign LLC’s income was already offered to tax in In...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existe...
Income Tax : Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assist...
Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib). The ruling emphasizes that the anti-abuse provision cannot be extended to genuine intra-group capital infusions.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the enhanced 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be imposed on income relating to FY 2016-17. The Court emphasized that the amendment expressly took effect from 01.04.2017 and operates prospectively.
The ITAT held that transfer pricing adjustment was not justified where the foreign LLC’s income was already offered to tax in India by the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the TP addition, finding no profit shifting or tax erosion.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal CIT instead of the prescribed higher authority under Section 151. The reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that where a capital asset was acquired before 01.04.2001, the claim for adopting fair market value as on that date must be examined on merits. The key takeaway is that statutory valuation rights cannot be rejected on technical grounds alone.
