Goods and Services Tax : The case examined if income details could be disclosed under RTI during a matrimonial dispute. The Court ruled that such disclosur...
Income Tax : ITR-4 Sugam: End of Blind Presumptive Compliance?” The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has introduced a significant complia...
Income Tax : Highlights that selecting the incorrect portal tab can lead to data mismatches and filing errors. Emphasizes the need to use the c...
Income Tax : The new law reorganizes provisions and introduces clearer section mapping for business income. It simplifies compliance while reta...
Income Tax : Free products, sponsored trips, and non-cash perks are now taxable under Section 194R if their value exceeds ₹20,000 annually. B...
CA, CS, CMA : The Court found CBDT failed to follow its 2015 directive on timely ITR utility release. It ordered an affidavit with corrective st...
CA, CS, CMA : KSCAA urged CBDT to extend due dates for assessees under Section 92E, citing an omission in Circular No. 15/2025 that created inco...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC has directed CBDT to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between date for furnishing tax audit reports (unde...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...
Income Tax : The Pune Chartered Accountants' Society has requested an extension for tax audit and ITR filing deadlines for FY 2024-25, citing t...
Income Tax : The case addresses the continued failure to release ITR utilities on time despite earlier court directions. The Court adjourned th...
Corporate Law : The court interpreted the scope of Section 91 CrPC in summoning documents. It ruled that parties cannot demand documents as a matt...
Income Tax : The case focuses on systemic delays and technical shortcomings in the e-filing system. The Court directed the Department to file a...
Service Tax : The case addresses whether discrepancies between ITR/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns can justify a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal hel...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and financial details establishing the iden...
Income Tax : CBDT clarified the presentation of error categories in Form U. The update ensures clearer reporting of incorrect income heads and ...
Income Tax : The corrigendum corrects technical errors in multiple ITR schedules, including CG and CYLA. It ensures accurate reporting and smoo...
Income Tax : CBDT corrected multiple clerical and structural errors across income tax return schedules. The changes ensure accurate reporting a...
Income Tax : The corrigendum fixes an incorrect aggregation formula in Schedule CG and wrong cross-references in Schedule UD. It ensures accura...
Income Tax : The corrigendum addresses formatting and reference errors in Schedule CG and Schedule OS. It clarifies reporting fields without al...
8. Having carefully examined the entire evidences available on the record in the light of the oral submissions of the parties, with reference to the provisions of law and the precedents relied before us and after giving anxious thought, in the light of the plain words used in section 263 of the Act and in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT
An ‘NRI’ is a citizen of India or a person of Indian origin* who is not a resident in India. Residency for tax purposes is decided based on a person’s physical stay in India. There are three conditions that could trigger non residency for tax purposes. First, when an individual’s stay in India is less than 60 days in a particular tax year. Second when the stay exceeds 60 days but is less than 182 days and the cumulative stay in the four years preceding the year in question is less than 365. Finally, when an individual leaves India for taking up an employment outside India and his/her stay is less than182 days in the year of departure.
16. On the issue of applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act, we are however of the view that the same arises for consideration on the grounds raised in cross objection and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the same. We are of the view that provisions of section 28(iv) would not be attracted to a case of increase in capital of partners of a firm pursuant to revaluation of the assets of the firm. Under section 28 of the Act
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
