Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains when interest is payable for delayed return filing, advance tax defaults, deferment of instalme...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...
Income Tax : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : Representation for relaxation from levy of interest u/s. 234A on payment of self-assessment tax for A.Y. 2020-21 within extended d...
Income Tax : The Government is planning to specify a certain category of taxpayers to pay their entire tax liability for FY 2019-20 in advanc...
Income Tax : At the end of May the Income Tax Return forms are released for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and same been held back by finance mini...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that a one-day delay in filing Form 10DA could not defeat a Section 80JJAA deduction when the form was on record ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that royalty payments should continue to be benchmarked under TNMM by following earlier decisions in the a...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld taxation of IPS and CEV subsidies following the Section 2(24) amendment, while partly allowing the appeal on other iss...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held the ITAT failed to properly examine the ‘make available’ test for secondment payments, set aside its ord...
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 : CIRCULAR NO. 2/2015 The Board has decided that no interest under section 234A of the Act is chargeable on the amount of self-asses...
The Tribunal held that a continuously maintained ledger found during search constituted reliable evidence. Additions for unexplained expenditure under section 69C were sustained based on corroborated diary entries.
The Tribunal held that once reassessment is validly initiated, the Assessing Officer can tax any escaped income discovered later. Additions need not relate to the original reopening reason.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 14A could be made when no expenditure relating to exempt income was claimed. The Tribunal held that unclaimed expenses cannot be disallowed. The ruling reinforces that section 14A applies only to deductions actually claimed.
The tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153C cannot stand without valid satisfaction as mandated by law. Failure to examine this jurisdictional issue vitiates the proceedings.
The Tribunal emphasized that exempt income disclosed in the return cannot be taxed due to a technical reporting mistake. Substance of disclosure prevails over form where facts are undisputed.
The issue was whether adjustment of brought-forward loss and depreciation under MAT could be altered through rectification. The Tribunal held that such MAT computation involves interpretation and debate, making section 154 inapplicable.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings remain valid even if no separate addition is made on the original reopening issue. The key lesson is that voluntary disclosure by the assessee satisfies the reopening requirement.
Addition of ₹2.28 crore made as long-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee society was deleted in full as amount paid by a developer directly to individual members of a co-operative housing society pursuant to redevelopment cannot be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the society, particularly when the society itself never received the amount.
The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
