Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains when interest is payable for delayed return filing, advance tax defaults, deferment of instalme...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article explains the advance tax provisions under the Income-tax Act, including liability thresholds, exemptions, and instalm...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
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 : ITAT held interest from head office and overseas branches is not taxable as payment to self, while interest from overseas banks al...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that a one-day delay in filing Form 10DA could not defeat a Section 80JJAA deduction when the form was on record ...
Income Tax : Transfer pricing principles dictate that a captive, risk-mitigated service provider could not be benchmarked against full-fledged,...
Income Tax : ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate rest...
Madras HC upheld deduction for site restoration expenses, holding the contractual obligation under the PSC is allowable under Section 37(1).
ITAT held no TDS was required as the Revenue failed to prove the services made technical knowledge available under the India-US DTAA.
The ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. The benefit cannot be restricted to one new house merely because multiple houses were transferred.
ITAT Jaipur held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was filed late when it was already available before processing the return under Section 143(1). The Tribunal allowed the trust’s appeal and directed grant of the exemption.
Receipts earned by a German resident individual from rendering managerial, consultancy and business development services outside India, based on personal expertise and independent professional skill, constituted independent professional services under Article 14 of the India–Germany DTAA and were not taxable in India in the absence of a fixed base or the prescribed period of stay in India
The ITAT Mumbai held that Fees for Technical Services were taxable at 10% under section 115A(1)(b) since the RBI’s automatic approval mechanism satisfied the statutory requirements. The Tribunal ruled that the 15% DTAA rate could not be applied where domestic law provided a more beneficial rate.
The Tribunal held that additions not proposed in the original draft assessment order and unsupported by DRP directions could not be sustained. It reaffirmed that the statutory process under Section 144C must be followed before making prejudicial variations.
ITAT Mumbai held that the CPC could not withdraw an already allowed Section 10AA deduction through rectification without recording reasons. The Tribunal restored the deduction after finding no material justifying the action.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore after finding the facts identical to an earlier assessment year. It held that a pending High Court appeal does not dilute the binding nature of an unreversed Tribunal decision.
The ITAT held that payments made to directors represented arranger fees and not prohibited sub-brokerage under SEBI Regulations. It deleted the entire disallowance under Section 37(1), finding no violation of law.
