Income Tax : A detailed overview of limitation periods prescribed under the Income-tax Act reveals how missing statutory deadlines can lead to ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rulings in Wipro and Shriram Investments mandate strict adherence to return filing deadlines: fresh claims/withdra...
Income Tax : A revised tax return helps you correct mistakes in your ITR filing. Learn who can file, the deadline, and how to file a revised re...
Income Tax : Learn about filing a revised income tax return under Section 139(5) to correct mistakes. Understand the deadlines, scope of revisi...
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 : The banks have almost reported wrong information to the department. The interest reported is twice/thrice than interest shown by t...
Income Tax : Section 139(5) - Reduction in time limit for filing revised return - Retention of existing time limit for filing of revised tax re...
Income Tax : ITAT Agra held that neither Section 87A nor Section 111A expressly prohibits rebate on tax payable on short-term capital gains for...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of a ₹10 lakh deduction after the recipient political party informed the tax authorities th...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot survive where transactions are reflected in broker records and the source ...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT reaffirmed that lease rentals from SEZ and IT Parks along with amenities are taxable as business income. The rulin...
Income Tax : A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the ori...
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...
The case examined denial of section 11 exemption at the processing stage due to late filing of Form 10B. The Tribunal ruled that such delay is a curable procedural defect and cannot justify denial of exemption.
The issue was whether the income-tax e-filing utility could prevent an assessee from making a lawful set-off claim. The High Court held that procedural software cannot override statutory rights and directed that such claims must be allowed.
The Tribunal held that a transfer pricing reference made after expiry of assessment limitation is void. Once time has run out under section 153, subsequent TPO action cannot resurrect the assessment.
ITAT held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied where the audit report in Form 10B was filed before CPC processed the return, even if the return itself was belated.
The ITAT held that the AO could not deny TDR cost in both AY 2018–19 and AY 2020–21, directing allowance of the deduction. Authorities cannot blow hot and cold on the same issue across years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal for re-examination of a section 36(1)(va) addition due to inadvertent error in the original audit report. The matter was restored to the AO to pass a speaking order. This highlights the importance of rectifying audit errors to prevent wrongful income additions.
Supreme Court rulings in Wipro and Shriram Investments mandate strict adherence to return filing deadlines: fresh claims/withdrawals of exemptions (like Sec 10B) via revised returns filed after the original due date are invalid. Appellate authorities retain power to admit new claims.
Bombay High Court held that no hypothetical income of the assessee could have been brought to tax. Accordingly, income not accrued due to cancellation of sale agreement. Thus, order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi ruled that Section 50C, which allows revaluing property based on circle rates, applies only to the seller in a transfer, not the buyer in a slump sale governed by Section 50B. The Tribunal held that goodwill is depreciable, but its value must be verified by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.7.86 Cr treated as unexplained cash credit due to a sharp increase in proprietor’s capital shown in the tax return. The ITAT set aside the addition, finding a prima facie case of mere misclassification of partner overdrawn balances as capital, which should not be automatically treated as new unexplained income under S 68.
