Income Tax : A detailed overview of limitation periods prescribed under the Income-tax Act reveals how missing statutory deadlines can lead to ...
Income Tax : Understand what belated ITR filing is in 2025, including deadlines, late fees under Section 234F, and the loss of tax benefits lik...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of agricultural expenses based on estimation is unsustainable without concrete evidence, rul...
Income Tax : Understand Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, its implications on return filing due dates, and the changes for FY 2023-24. Learn a...
Income Tax : Understand the concept of Updated Return under the Income-tax Act, its necessity, tax implications, and filing process. Get insigh...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that Section 54 relief cannot be denied when capital gains are invested in a new residential house before ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment addit...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for al...
Income Tax : The Court held that rejecting condonation solely because the assessment year was not mentioned in the circular is unjustified. It ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the revised ₹25 lakh exemption limit for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) must be considered and r...
Income Tax : The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which is 31st July 2021 under sub-section (1) of s...
Income Tax : CBDT hereby authorises the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (NaFAC) having her / his headqua...
A detailed overview of limitation periods prescribed under the Income-tax Act reveals how missing statutory deadlines can lead to penalties, loss of deductions, exemptions, and legal remedies. The key takeaway is that timely compliance with filing, assessment, appeal, audit, and tax payment obligations is crucial to avoid adverse tax consequences.
The Bangalore ITAT held that Section 54 relief cannot be denied when capital gains are invested in a new residential house before filing the return under Section 139(4). The Tribunal ruled that such investment satisfies the statutory requirement even without a prior deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.
The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment additions under Section 69. Absence of corroborative evidence led to deletion of the entire addition.
Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for all FAR functions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s “double profit attribution” theory and deleted the enhanced PE addition.
The Court held that rejecting condonation solely because the assessment year was not mentioned in the circular is unjustified. It ruled that beneficial circulars must be applied liberally to address genuine hardship.
The Tribunal held that the revised ₹25 lakh exemption limit for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) must be considered and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The decision emphasizes applying the enhanced limit even for earlier assessment years where judicial precedents support the claim.
The Tribunal observed that ₹99.10 lakh allegedly added as unexplained credits may represent earlier year balances. The matter was remanded for verification to avoid wrongful taxation in the current assessment year.
Additions based on survey-time valuation of machinery were deleted as the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account. Prior binding orders in the same case were followed, reaffirming settled law.
Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied without examining crucial evidence. The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and legal issues.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party GST information and suspicion cannot be sustained without independent investigation, restricting estimation to 1% of sales.
