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 Tribunal held that after submission of primary creditor details, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the claim. The case was remanded to ensure fair opportunity and proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years required approval from the higher authority specified under the amended section 151. Since sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority, the entire proceeding was invalidated.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence where TDS credit was denied because it appeared in a different assessment year’s Form 26AS. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify documents and allow credit as per law.
The authorities compared intra-group commission rates without economic analysis. The Tribunal ruled that such an approach leads to invalid transfer pricing adjustments.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that no permanent establishment existed as contracts were executed and completed outside India. The ruling confirms that offshore supply alone does not create tax liability.
