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 ITAT found the assessee was not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The recall led to cancellation of the Section 271AAB penalty for commodities trading income.
ITAT Jaipur clarified that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires proper examination of evidence and explanation by the assessee before imposition. Mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income.
Tribunal holds that surrendered LTCG cannot be treated as undisclosed income when fully recorded in books and supported by verifiable documents. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore not leviable.
ITAT Delhi held that a Local Authority providing general public utility services is not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
ITAT Raipur held that addition upheld by CIT(A) without passing a speaking order in the backdrop of documents uploaded by the assessee. Accordingly, matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
Mumbai ITAT deleted Rs.8.43 Cr addition u/s68. Assessee proved lenders’ identity, PAN, and bank transfers. Suspicion over creditworthiness cannot replace evidence.
Bangalore ITAT rejected PR consultant’s revised return, ruling that agency business is excluded from presumptive taxation under s.44AD(6)(iii). Original income confirmed.
The ITAT Raipur ruled that the CIT(A) overstepped its jurisdiction by remanding a multi-crore TDS dispute involving SECL. The decision clarifies that a CIT(A) cannot remand cases that were not assessed under Section 144.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
