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 Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investment was made during the assessment year in question. Documentary evidence showing the transaction belonged to an earlier year remained uncontroverted.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure cannot be sustained when audited books are accepted and no specific defects or bogus expenses are identified. The Tribunal deleted the entire 10% estimated addition.
The Delhi ITAT held that rejection of books under Section 145(3) was unjustified where the tax authorities failed to identify specific discrepancies. The Tribunal deleted the profit estimation-based addition and emphasized the need for concrete defects before rejecting accounts.
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.
