Income Tax : The Income Tax Act, 2025 replaces Sections 44AD, 44ADA, and 44AE with a unified Section 58 framework. While the structure has been...
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 Income Tax Act, 2025 introduces Section 58, consolidating earlier presumptive taxation schemes into one unified framework. It ...
Income Tax : The tribunal ruled that business income under section 44AD cannot be taxed using section 44ADA provisions. Presumptive schemes mus...
CA, CS, CMA : The calendar lists all major statutory deadlines across laws. It helps businesses track filings and avoid penalties through timely...
CA, CS, CMA : The ICAI has updated guidelines for tax audit limits, retaining a 60-audit cap per member per financial year. The rule is effectiv...
Income Tax : Join our 5-day live course from Sept 8-12, 2024, for an in-depth understanding of tax audits under Section 44AB, with practical in...
Income Tax : Join our live course from Aug 23-25, 2024, to master tax audits, including Form 3CD, financial statements, and GST, with practical...
Income Tax : Exposure Draft of Revised ‘Guidance Note on Tax Audit under section 44AB of Income-tax Act, 1961’ is issued by ICAI Direct Tax...
Income Tax : Representation for extension of Due date of Income Tax Returns And Audit Report For A.Y. 2021-2022 (F.Y. 2020-2021. It is reques...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that once income higher than the presumptive rate under Section 44AD was declared, the assessee was not requir...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was wrongly invoked where the assessee’s turnover exceeded ₹2 c...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued on 25.07.2022 were time-barred since the Revenue had only one surviving day left un...
Income Tax : The case dealt with rejection of books due to unverifiable expenses and lack of supporting records. The ITAT upheld rejection but ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed when the trust merely facilitates transactions and costs are reimbur...
Income Tax : The amendments brought about by Notification No. 45/2023 – Income-Tax (Income-tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2023) encompas...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : In compliance to the judgments of various High Courts and after considering the representations received for extension of the due ...
Income Tax : Notification No. 33/2014-Income Tax S.O. 1902 (E).. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 read with section 44AB of t...
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).
ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits reflecting routine business transactions cannot be treated wholly as unexplained income. Only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be fully treated as undisclosed when income was declared under section 44AD. The key takeaway is acceptance of presumptive business income.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹20,000 yearly penalties where assessments under section 153C accepted returned income with no additions, holding notice non-compliance as merely technical.
The Tribunal deleted both substantive and protective additions made across multiple years on the same alleged receipts. It held that such duplication results in impermissible multiple taxation of identical amounts.
The Tribunal held that receipts already offered under the presumptive scheme cannot be taxed again as unexplained money. Once income is declared under section 44AD and supported by surrounding facts, section 69A has no application.
Addressing alleged cash discrepancies and debtor recoveries, the Tribunal held that such amounts form part of presumptive business receipts. Without books or adverse evidence, additions were unjustified.
The dispute concerned treatment of frequent cash deposits collected from customers for recharge services. The Tribunal affirmed that income should be estimated at 8% where records and compliance were lacking.
The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without furnishing recorded reasons despite a taxpayers request. The Tribunal held that failure to supply reasons is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates reassessment.
