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 held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rather than 2% of turnover. The order emphasised consistency in estimation across assessment years.
The Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for appeal commenced only when the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revealing the basis of the outstanding demand.
Assessee argued that conclusions drawn from a 2005 survey on liaison offices could not be applied mechanically to later branch office structure. ITAT directed fresh examination of branch office’s actual functions and activities.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
The Mumbai ITAT held that expenditure on software licences, maintenance, database access and periodic upgrades is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that mere use of software does not create a capital asset or enduring ownership right.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as mandated by law. The Tribunal quashed the tax adjustment denying concessional tax benefits because the mandatory opportunity of response was not provided.
ITAT Rajkot held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approving authority merely stated Yes, I am satisfied without independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated Section 151 approval as a mandatory procedural safeguard.
The Tribunal held that a company engaged in high-end KPO and business solutions could not be compared with a routine captive BPO service provider. It also ruled that a comparable cannot be rejected solely for following a different financial year if reliable quarterly data is available.
The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues cannot be adjusted at the processing stage, resulting in relief to the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural boundaries.
