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 : Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Pe...
Income Tax : Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rathe...
Income Tax : Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subse...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that lawful TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the Assessing Officer overlooked an earlier rectification o...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revea...
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
Madras High Court held that in terms of section 245I, the Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee filed his return of Income on 27.08.2019. After filing the return, assessee received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 23.03.2021 and found that relief under section 90 of the Act had not been allowed amounting to Rs 73,658/-.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act made towards penny stock deleted since assessee duly discharged the onus cast upon him and there is no adverse order/penalty order against the Assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that CPC wrongly processed return by considering due date as 5th August instead of 31st October. Accordingly, interest charged under section 234A of the Income Tax Act deleted and interest charged under section 234B altered.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.35,13,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
It is settled position of law that there cannot be any estoppels against the statute. If an income, is not taxable within the four corners of law, then the same cannot be made taxable merely because the assessee has offered the same under misconception of facts and law.
Assessee had been mainly providing e-platform for conducting e-auction, e-procurement services for disposal of scrap arisings, surplus stores, etc. from PSUs and Government Departments including Defence.
ITAT Bangalore directed CIT(A) to condone delay of 484 days in filing of an appeal and consider the issue on merits as it is alleged that the addition is made due to incorrect reporting by auditor.
