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 issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
No on-money addition was made in the cases of other co-owners of the same property. The ITAT held that the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stand on identical facts.
Delhi High Court held that outsourcing solutions including transaction processing services and Internet/voice-based customer care services for its clients to subsidiary in India doesn’t result in creation of Permanent Establishment [PE] in India under India-USA DTAA.
ITAT held that invoking Rule 8D without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee’s own disallowance violates section 14A(2). Mechanical application of Rule 8D renders the disallowance legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that after the High Court invalidated section 153C proceedings, all subsequent tax adjustments including those involving ₹6.68 crore are unsustainable. Judicial finality bars further action.
The Tribunal ruled that advisory and consultancy services could not be taxed as Fees for Included Services because no technical knowledge was transferred to clients.
The dispute concerned denial of TDS credit solely due to non-reflection in Form 26AS. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS is not conclusive and factual deduction of tax overrides system mismatch.
Cash deposited during demonetisation was explained as coming from income surrendered and accepted in an earlier survey. The Tribunal held that disbelief about holding cash cannot replace evidence and deleted the section 69A addition.
The assessee failed to file returns for two years preceding the capital increase. The Tribunal held that unexplained capital accretion must be taxed under section 68.
Rejecting a summary denial of deductions, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify whether mortgage repayments and other costs were wholly connected with the transfer. Taxpayers were directed to cooperate and file complete evidence.
