Income Tax : Missed the ITR filing deadline? Learn the penalties, interest charges, and restrictions. Understand the consequences and how to fi...
Income Tax : Discover why taxpayers are urging for an extension of July 31 ITR filing deadline in 2024. Learn about ITR forms, filing steps, co...
Income Tax : Discover who must file an ITR even with income below the exemption limit. Understand key scenarios and benefits to stay compliant ...
Income Tax : Discover hassle-free tips for filing your Income Tax Return (ITR) before the July 31, 2024 deadline. Learn about necessary documen...
Income Tax : Discover the benefits of filing Income Tax Returns (ITR), including compliance with tax laws, improving credit score, visa applica...
Income Tax : Understand PFA and defective return queries for ITR 1-6 for AY 24-25, including MAT applicability, TDS/TCS claims, and income disc...
Corporate Law : A record 7.28 crore ITRs filed for AY 2024-25, with 5.27 crore in the New Tax Regime. Over 69.92 lakh ITRs were filed on 31st July...
Income Tax : New amendments to the Black Money Act from October 2024 raise the exemption threshold for penalties on foreign assets to ₹20 lak...
Income Tax : ICAI addresses issues with Form 26AS/TIS/AIS and ITR filing glitches, urging CBDT for timely resolution to aid taxpayers in meetin...
Income Tax : Discover comprehensive FAQs on filing ITR-4 (Sugam) for AY 2024-25. Learn eligibility criteria, tax regime options, documents need...
Income Tax : Supreme Court held that Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in respect of Mysore Sales and that the liquor vendor...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that loss on sale of shares on recognized stock exchange with STT paid, is eligible to be set off against the lo...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court dismisses Income Tax Department's appeal in PCIT Vs Satya Prakash Gupta case, finding no evidence of commission r...
Income Tax : Explore the Delhi High Court's judgment on ITSC's conclusive nature for AY, assessing reassessment under Section 148 of the Income...
Corporate Law : The Punjab & Haryana High Court orders a father to pay maintenance for his minor son despite his claim of unemployment, considerin...
Income Tax : Discover how TDS charge officers verify high-risk refund cases using Insight Instruction No. 76. Learn about the SOP, steps, and f...
Income Tax : Understand the time limit for income tax return verification after uploading. Learn the implications of late verification and the ...
Income Tax : Explore amendments in ITR form V & Acknowledgement for A.Y 2024-25 as per Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules, 1962. Understand filing pr...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies ITR-7 [For persons including companies required to furnish return under sections 139(4A) or 139(4B) or 139(4C) or 13...
38. First and foremost rule of construction of interpretation is that in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, the said enactment cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and when amendment relates to a procedural provision results into creating a new disability or obligation and which imposes new duty in respect of transactions already completed,
CIT VS. SIEMENS AG (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) If the Tribunal has answered an issue and that has not been challenged by the revenue, it will not be open to the revenue to raise the said issue again in respect of the same assessee; The judgement of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries vs. DIT 288 ITR 408 (SC) has been overcome by the Explanation to s. 9 inserted by the FA 2007 which provides that income from royalty paid by a resident would be deemed to accrue in India even if the recipient has no PE
In Goetze v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction by way of a letter filed before the AO without filing a revised return. However, this judgement is limited to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal to entertain the claim by way of an additional ground. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
ITR 1-5 in excel form with auto calculations and with challans 280 & 281. ITR-1 in excel format for A.Y. 2008-09, ITR-2 in excel format for A.Y. 2008-09 , ITR-3 in excel format for A.Y. 2008-09, ITR-4 in excel format for A.Y. 2008-09 , ITR-5 in excel format for A.Y. 2008-09
1. Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High Court) – (i) The Chairman of the Settlement Commission has the power to constitute a Special Bench and he is not required to give reasons or produce the material in support thereof. (ii) It is not as if the moment an application is made and there is compliance of the requirements of Section 245-D that the Commission is bound to entertain the application and allow it. The Commission has then to consider whether the application is invalid under Section 245-D(2C). The Settlement Commission can treat the application as invalid meaning thereby non – est if the Applicant has not made a true and full disclosure and further must disclose how the income has been derived. If on the material it arrives at a conclusion even prima facie that there was no true and full disclosure it has then the right to declare the application as invalid.
This appeal by the taxpayer for the AY 2004-05 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) partially setting aside assessment under Section 263 of IT. Act made vide order dated 30 March, 2005 with directions to the Assessing Officer for the fresh determination of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction with AEs in the light of his directions.
RBF Rig Corpn. LIC (RBFRC) v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Perquisite, not provided by monetary payment – Assessment year 2004-05 – Whether payment of tax on behalf of employee at option of employer is a non-monetary perquisite fully covered by sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of section 17 and, thus, exempt under section 10(10CC) and is not liable to be included in total income of employee – Held, yes – Whether taxes paid by employer can be added only once in salary of employee and thereafter, tax on such perquisite is not to be added again – Held, yes
Under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the prerequisite for exercise of either power may be similar to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record, by its very nature, the power to rectify a mistake would not result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified. This was held by the Delhi High Court in C.I.T. v Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd (293 I.T.R. 163).
The Supreme Court directed tax payers all over the country to file Income Tax returns under the prescribed new ITR forms for assessment year 2007-08 by February 29, 2008 – the new deadline set by the government. The direction was passed after Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran informed the bench headed by Justice B N Agarwal that the Centre was issuing a notification today extending the time for filing returns till February 29, next year in relation to all categories of assessees.
CIT vs. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (Supreme Court) -The review petition filed by the department against the judgement reported in CIT P.V.A.L Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654 (SC) {reg applicability of DTAA} has been dismissed.
