Income Tax : The document outlines the circumstances in which taxpayers become liable to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of th...
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 : 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 : The Delhi ITAT held that receipts from sale and restricted use of standard cybersecurity software could not be taxed as Fees for T...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshol...
Income Tax : The issue was whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the assessee had not earned any exe...
Income Tax : The issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that Fees for Technical Services cannot be taxed under Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA merely because th...
The case involved CPC adjustment denying deduction for employees’ PF contribution deposited after statutory due dates. The tribunal ruled that before the Supreme Court’s later decision, the issue was debatable and could not be adjusted under Section 143(1).
ITAT Delhi held that Oracle India Private Limited is an independent legal entity and existence of Oracle India Private Limited cannot be considered as permanent establishment of Oracle Systems Corporation. Hence, there is not question of attribution of profit to Permanent Establishment.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee is needs to establish the expenditure which is unreasonably high. Thus, additional evidence filed for expense pertaining to ‘shortage and quality cuts’ needs complete verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
Tribunal held that application software licences with limited duration and no ownership rights are revenue expenditure. It deleted the disallowance and ruled that remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 were invalid in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal. As the reopening was barred by limitation, the reassessment order was quashed.
ITAT held that scrap trading does not follow a fixed sales pattern and income declared under Section 44AD cannot be rejected on suspicion. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Hyderabad held only ₹1.24 crore accumulation from A.Y. 1994-95 survives for possible Section 11(3) taxation; earlier years’ accumulations were non-existent, and matter restored to CIT(A) for limited verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling on surviving period. Notices issued beyond the permissible limit were declared invalid.
ITAT ruled that once the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the issue forming the basis of reopening, other additions cannot survive. MAT demand under Section 115JB was therefore struck down as unlawful.
