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...
ITAT Delhi held that PCIT’s revision under section 263 on alleged bogus sales was invalid since the same transactions were already under appeal before CIT(A). Substituting the AO’s judgment without showing assessment was erroneous and prejudicial was impermissible.
Tribunal ruled that promotional scheme expenses were properly accrued and supported by evidence. Disallowance of ₹16.22 lakh was deleted, allowing assessee’s appeal.
The Tribunal held that several comparables selected by the tax authorities failed the RPT filter and were functionally dissimilar, warranting exclusion. It ordered verification, directed inclusion of suitable event-management comparables, and remanded the interest-on-receivables and ICDS issues for fresh review.
The Tribunal held that section 69A requires unexplained money or valuables to be found; since only documents showing commission were seized, invoking section 69A was invalid. Only 20% of gross commission was allowed as taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s omission to verify whether the land sold fell within municipal limits made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying Section 263 revision.
ITAT Jaipur held that Urban Improvement Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of State within the meaning thereof. Hence, income is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
The order reiterates that mere unusual price movement or high returns do not convert a scrip into a penny stock. With identical facts earlier examined and accepted, the Tribunal followed precedent and removed all additions.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in refusing to consider the USAID–AE agreement, which directly established the back-to-back cost-plus-6% model. It ruled that such crucial evidence cannot be dismissed on a procedural technicality and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Delhi restored the appeal to CIT(A) after the assessee challenged notice issuance beyond limitation and under wrong section. Key takeaway: adherence to correct procedure is crucial in income tax assessments.
