Income Tax : Only specified professionals can opt for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA. Declaring less than 50% profit may trigger mand...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. S...
Income Tax : Section 44AA mandates maintenance of books of accounts by specified professionals and businesses exceeding prescribed limits. Lear...
Income Tax : Section 44AA mandates books for professionals and businesses exceeding income thresholds. Details presumptive tax rules, required ...
Income Tax : Form 3CD requires mandatory reporting on taxpayer identity, business status, accounting methods (ICDS), depreciation, inadmissible...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reas...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and la...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered unde...
Income Tax : The dispute centered on a statutory obligation to maintain books of account. The tribunal confirmed that non-compliance attracts p...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy...
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reasons. It emphasized that procedural compliance is mandatory and failure to follow it invalidates the relief granted.*
The Tribunal held that absence of bills for agricultural sales cannot justify addition under Section 69A. Where cultivation and land ownership are undisputed, receipts cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered under section 44AD. Arbitrary substitution of a higher rate by the AO was held unsustainable.
Only specified professionals can opt for presumptive taxation under Section 44ADA. Declaring less than 50% profit may trigger mandatory tax audit under Section 44AB(d).
The dispute centered on a statutory obligation to maintain books of account. The tribunal confirmed that non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 271A, which cannot be deleted without substantive rebuttal.
The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy of section 271B was held to be impermissible double penalisation.
The assessee claimed that cash deposits belonged to company debtors and past savings, which were not examined earlier. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-verification in the interest of justice.
Andhra Pradesh held that neither the State Legislature nor the Central Legislature would have power, to levy tax on the sale of goods made beyond the territorial waters of India. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of setting aside the assessment orders and remanded the matter back.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. Since audited books were available, there was no failure to maintain accounts.
The Tribunal deleted a penalty imposed for alleged non-maintenance of accounts. It held that audited books, even if defective, do not attract penalty under Section 271A.
