Income Tax : The article argues that recurring demands for ITR deadline extensions arise from delayed AIS updates, late utility releases, and t...
Income Tax : Large cash deposits, credit card spending, FDs, and UPI transactions are monitored by tax authorities. Taxpayers must ensure their...
Income Tax : Resident and Ordinarily Resident taxpayers holding foreign assets or earning foreign income must disclose details in Schedule FA. ...
Income Tax : Family members actively working in a business without proper remuneration or tax reporting may create inconsistencies in ITRs, AIS...
Income Tax : AY 2026-27 requires structured reporting of long-term and short-term gains from shares and mutual funds. Particular attention is n...
CA, CS, CMA : Chandigarh Chartered Accountants Taxation Association has requested CBDT to immediately release pending ITR e-filing utilities for...
Income Tax : KSCAA requested the CBDT to release e-filing utilities and schemas for AY 2026-27 without delay, stating that pending utilities ar...
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 Court emphasized that procedural defaults should not override substantive tax benefits where genuine hardship exists. It direc...
Income Tax : The Tribunal accepted that the taxpayer was pursuing rectification remedies and therefore condoned the delay in filing the appeal....
Corporate Law : The Calcutta High Court held that Income Tax Returns filed prior to the victim’s death could not be viewed with suspicion while ...
Service Tax : CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand raised merely on differences between ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns without pro...
Income Tax : The case addresses the continued failure to release ITR utilities on time despite earlier court directions. The Court adjourned th...
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...
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.
