Income Tax : Breaks down Section 234F penalties, 1% monthly interest, and the hidden loss of tax benefits that arise when returns are filed aft...
Income Tax : Understand Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Income Tax Act covering interest on late filing, short payment, delayed adva...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Understand how interest under the Income Tax Act is calculated, including Sections 234A–234D, 244A, and Rule 119A mechanics for ...
Income Tax : Missing the ITR due date u/s 139(1) mandates the use of the new tax regime, as the option to choose the old regime or file Form ...
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 : Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of ac...
Income Tax : Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rathe...
Income Tax : Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subse...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that lawful TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the Assessing Officer overlooked an earlier rectification o...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a dece...
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 reassessment initiated after three years required approval from the higher authority specified under the amended section 151. Since sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority, the entire proceeding was invalidated.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence where TDS credit was denied because it appeared in a different assessment year’s Form 26AS. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify documents and allow credit as per law.
The authorities compared intra-group commission rates without economic analysis. The Tribunal ruled that such an approach leads to invalid transfer pricing adjustments.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The tribunal held that amounts already disclosed and taxed as accommodated receipts cannot be taxed again under another head. Separate additions were deleted as they resulted in impermissible double taxation.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
