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...
ITAT Delhi ruled that validly filed Form 10-IC ensures eligibility for Section 115BAA concessional tax rate. Key takeaway: timely filing secures lower corporate tax in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to TDS credit if the tax was deducted at source, even if the employer failed to deposit it or issue Form 16. Tax authorities cannot penalize the employee for the employer’s lapses.
ITAT Delhi remitted a case where CIT(A) upheld additions without examining available evidence. The ruling reinforces that authorities must fully consider documents and explanations before confirming unexplained investments.
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act merely because of inadvertent error of claiming exemption u/s. 10(46) instead of 10(23C)(iv) is not justifiable. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) granted.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transaction of payment of bareboat charter hire fees is directed to be deleted since benchmarking approach of assessee is already accepted by DRP in earlier years.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹63.84 lakh addition under Section 68, observing that the assessee had already declared the same transactions as sales in audited accounts. Citing CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., it held that taxing such income again would lead to double taxation. The order reinforces that genuine recorded transactions cannot be recharacterized as unexplained cash credits.
The ITAT Kolkata restored Section 12A registration and Section 11 exemption to the Chamber of Commerce, holding that its objects and activities are charitable in nature, similar to the Indian Chamber of Commerce. The Tribunal applied the rule of consistency, noting the Chamber’s registration was already granted for subsequent assessment years.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment towards bandwidth service without transfer of right to use equipment or process could not be characterized as ‘royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of India-UAE DTAA. Thus, appeal decided in favour of assessee.
ITAT Delhi quashed a reassessment, ruling that jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a Section 148 notice after CBDT notification assigned exclusive power to NFAC under Section 151A. The key takeaway is that post-March 29, 2022, only NFAC can validly initiate reassessment proceedings under faceless regime.
