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 Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
The ITAT deleted transfer pricing adjustments for Advertisement, Marketing, and Sales Promotion (AMP) expenses, confirming no international transaction existed with the AE. The ruling held that the Bright Line Test (BLT) is invalid and that since the entity-level TNMM was accepted, no separate AMP adjustment was permissible.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
Understand how interest under the Income Tax Act is calculated, including Sections 234A–234D, 244A, and Rule 119A mechanics for taxpayers.
The ITAT deleted the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for a one-day delay in depositing employees PF contribution. The ruling held that the delay was due to a technical failure of the EPFO portal, not the taxpayers fault, successfully invoking the doctrine of impossibility over the strict ruling in Checkmate Services.
Kolkata ITAT rules that delayed Form 67 filing isn’t fatal to FTC claim. FTC is a substantive right under Section 90; Rule 128’s timeline is directory, not mandatory.
A summary of ITAT Chennai’s order in Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy Vs ITO, which sustained both unexplained investment under Section 69 and professional receipts found via Form 26AS but not declared in income tax return.
ITAT Mumbai allowed an appeal by a private discretionary trust, directing the re-computation of surcharge at 15% instead of 37%. The decision follows the Special Bench ruling in Aradhya Jain Trust vs. ITO, clarifying surcharge slab applicability for trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate.
The ITAT Chennai rules that the surcharge on a private discretionary trust’s dividend and capital gains income cannot exceed 15%, setting a precedent for similar cases.
