Income Tax : Explore special provisions for computing profits and gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961, covering diverse areas such as mineral ...
Income Tax : The revised content expands tax planning guidance for business setup by extending deduction analysis up to AY 2026-27 and Tax Year...
Income Tax : Explains when professionals must undergo tax audit based on Sections 44ADA, 44AD, and 44AB. Key takeaway: audit depends on profess...
Income Tax : The new law introduces audit requirements for businesses declaring profits below presumptive rates. It removes the earlier flexibi...
Income Tax : The issue concerns applicability of tax audit based on turnover thresholds. The ruling highlights that exceeding prescribed limits...
CA, CS, CMA : The UDIN portal will now validate turnover, gross receipts, and presumptive tax conditions before allowing UDIN generation for tax...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC has directed CBDT to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between date for furnishing tax audit reports (unde...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...
Income Tax : The Pune Chartered Accountants' Society has requested an extension for tax audit and ITR filing deadlines for FY 2024-25, citing t...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
Income Tax : ITAT found that the Assessing Officer incorrectly treated consignment transactions as the assessees turnover based solely on cess ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal upheld the deduction of interest expenditure after finding that the loan was utilized wholly for business activities....
Income Tax : Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC's jurisdiction. Howeve...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a Section 40A(3) disallowance cannot be made on the assumption that cash payments might have exceeded...
CA, CS, CMA : ICAI sets limit of 60 tax audit assignments per CA or partner annually, effective from 1 April 2026, replacing earlier 2008 guidel...
Income Tax : CBDT extends the due date for filing Form 56F under Section 10AA(8) and 10A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to March 31, 2025, for...
Income Tax : Stay updated with CBDT's Form 3CD Tax Audit Report Format, Form 3CEB & Form No. 65 revision. Learn about changes in tax audit rep...
Income Tax : Read Circular 18/2023 from the Government of India Ministry of Finance. Learn about the extension of the filing deadline for Incom...
Income Tax : CBDT has vide Notification No. 28/2021-Income Tax inserted new clauses in Form 3CD (Tax Audit Report) and also notified that Tax A...
The tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained income when supported by audited books and stock records. Mere suspicion or surrounding circumstances cannot override accepted accounts.
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.
Penalty for delayed filing of tax audit report was quashed after illness of the managing director was proved. The tribunal held that medical incapacity constituted reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The tribunal ruled that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales and bank withdrawals were genuine. It held that partial, ad-hoc additions without rejecting books of account are unsustainable.
The Court ruled that a marginal eight-minute delay in filing the return could not justify denial of loss carry forward. The order rejecting condonation was set aside to prevent disproportionate hardship.
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 Tribunal noted that no construction investment occurred during the year under appeal. Accordingly, no addition for unexplained investment could be sustained in that assessment year.
The Tribunal found that key evidences furnished by the assessee were not adequately considered by lower authorities. The issue was restored to ensure fair examination and compliance with natural justice.
The issue was whether personal capital could be compared with partnership capital to infer unexplained credits. The Tribunal held the comparison flawed and upheld deletion of the Section 68 addition.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot stand where income is enhanced purely by estimation. Additions made by applying a higher profit rate, without incriminating material, fall outside under-reporting.
