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 how faceless assessments under Section 144B operate through the e-Filing portal without requiri...
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 explains the advance tax provisions under the Income-tax Act, including liability thresholds, exemptions, and instalm...
Income Tax : Request to CBDT to permit filing of Form 10IC after expiration of time limit by condoning delay Issuance of Order under Section ...
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 : Recommendation For Amendment To Section 234C To Provide Relief Where A New Business Is Started During The Financial Year Section 2...
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 Delhi held that IT, salary and travel reimbursements without any profit element were not taxable and deleted the disallowance...
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 : 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...
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment beyond three years was valid when the assessed escaped income was only ₹13.98 lakh. It held that failure to meet the ₹50 lakh threshold under section 149(1)(b) rendered the reassessment without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that on-money admitted by a seller before the Settlement Commission cannot be presumed against the purchaser without independent evidence. In absence of any seized material or proof of cash payment, the addition u/s 69 was deleted.
The ITAT held that additions based on incorrect and unreconciled bank data cannot be sustained. The assessment was remanded for fresh verification of actual cash deposits and credits.
The ITAT held that reassessment based on a duplicate PAN, despite disclosure under a valid PAN, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. Ex parte orders passed without addressing such objections violate principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether higher depreciation on goods carriage vehicles could be disallowed during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable claims need scrutiny and cannot be adjusted under section 143(1).
ITAT Pune ruled that Section 5A overrides Rule 37BA, granting full TDS credit of ₹45.28 lakh to a Goa resident whose wife did not claim her share, rejecting CPC’s proportionate restriction
Tribunal quashed CIT(A)’s cryptic order that upheld addition based solely on IDS declaration. The case is remanded to ensure a fair hearing, full analysis of the Joint Development Agreement, and accurate determination of tax liability.
ITAT Jaipur held that the amount paid before due date of filing the return of income is not supposed to be disallowed under section 43B of the Income Tax Act even though the same was outstanding at the year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify the said aspect and pass appropriate order.
The Tribunal ruled that interest could not be disallowed when ample interest-free funds existed and no link was shown between overdraft borrowings and partners’ drawings. The key takeaway is that presumption of utilisation of own funds applies when mixed funds are available.
ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was fully backed by prior withdrawals exceeding ₹47 lakh. The ruling confirms that demonstrated cash availability defeats Section 68 additions.
