Income Tax : The article argues that Section 58(3) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 does not independently mandate books of account or tax audit for...
Income Tax : Understand every reporting requirement under Form 3CD as amended by the Finance Act, 2026. This guide explains clause-wise disclos...
Income Tax : This guide explains who is required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA based on business, profession, turnover, and i...
Income Tax : Section 44AA mandates maintenance of books by specified professionals and eligible businesses based on income or turnover limits. ...
Income Tax : Explore special provisions for computing profits and gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961, covering diverse areas such as mineral ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held legal services are not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and directed partner-wise DTAA examination. FTS addition was de...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held the ITAT failed to properly examine the ‘make available’ test for secondment payments, set aside its ord...
Income Tax : The Tribunal sent the issue of deduction for political donations back to the Assessing Officer after finding that bank transaction...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that entries found in third-party ERP software during a search cannot alone justify unexplained investment addit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) improperly admitted additional evidence without satisfying Rule 46A conditions or recording reas...
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.
