All Posts

<p>The Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court has set aside the hefty penalty of Rs.128 Crores levied on the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for failing to deduct Tax Deduction At Source (TDS) on the interest on the surged compensation disbursed under the Land Acquisition Act. It was remarked by the court that the officer followed the [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in a case stated that routine support services are not to be categorized under &#8220;Fee for Technical Services&#8221; (FTS) under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and therefore are not accountable to taxation in India. Nord Anglia Education Ltd, the assessee/appellant is an [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Tax deduction u/s 54 of Income Tax Act 1961 ( ITA ) is permissible even if proceeds from the sale of old property are not reinvested in the acquisition of new asset/property, the Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled. The taxpayer, Jignesh Jaysukhlal, owns a residential property, which he decided to sell. [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) supported the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) &#8216;s judgment to organize Rs. 129.03 lacs, including income from staff loans and miscellaneous income, as business income instead of income from other sources, affirming that this income was related to the business. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam [&hellip;]</p>

<p>An order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITA), noting that income tax notices were not sent to the actual address of the assessee has been set aside by the Ahmedabad &#8220;A&#8221; Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). A notice on 08.03.2018 under section 142(1) of ITA was issued to [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Within the specified six-month timeframe, the review of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is set to be completed CBDT Chairman Ravi Agrawal cited. In the Budget speech last month, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that the direct tax law of the country would be examined to make it easy, and the job would [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The income tax department has furnished 10,000 reopening notices to the companies and individuals in major cities asking for explanations for the differences in their notified incomes. Alongside the Central Board of Direct Taxes&#8217; (CBDT) current directive to track rampant cash transactions in sectors like hotels, luxury brand sales, hospitals, and IVF clinics, suggesting the [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The applications for condonation of delay should have been regarded without being too hyper-technical and in a judicious manner, ruled by the Kerala High Court. It was noted by the bench of Justice Gopinath P. that the delay in audit report filing in Form-10B can be 30 days, as the law merely needs that the [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) mentioned clarifying the problems in answer to the misinformation that the recent revision to Section 230(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not need all Indian citizens to have an income tax clearance certificate (ITCC) before travelling to other countries. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Delhi High Court, the deduction u/s 80-IA(7) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for the mere failure of the taxpayer to digitally file an audit report. It was noted by the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja that the audit report was duly provided to the AO and was [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In a recent development, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued a directive to the Income Tax department, underscoring the imperative need for &#8220;non-intrusive&#8221; monitoring of widespread cash transactions in sectors such as luxury brand sales, hotels, hospitals, and IVF clinics. This directive forms a pivotal component of the CBDT&#8217;s Central Action Plan [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The issuance of the process has been quashed by the Bombay High Court which is served on the directors of the company, M/s. Hubtown Ltd., for offences punishable u/s 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act for the delay in depositing the TDS as the TDS deducted by the company had already been deposited [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In its recent decision, the Calcutta High Court upheld a ruling by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) allowing an assessee to seek registration under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the initiation of the activity. The revenue department filed a petition under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disputing [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Observing that the scheme shown by the Central Government does not envisage exclusion of provision of section 148A since the process shown within the mentioned provisions is inextricably associated with Section 148, the Bombay High Court has quashed the whole exercise that the jurisdiction AO has performed under section 148A outside the faceless procedure. Section [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The addition on the interest income received out of the fixed deposits has been deleted by the Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The bench of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and B R Baskaran (Accountant Member) has marked that Assessing Officer (AO) is unable to corroborate the fact that the FD made by [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Finance Bill 2024 includes changes to Section 148A of the Income-Tax (I-T) Act, which relates to the time limits for issuing notices to reopen assessments. Currently, the Income-Tax Department can reopen assessments under Section 148A for up to 10 years (equivalent to 11 financial years) if the income exceeds Rs 50 lakh. In contrast, [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Cuttack bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a case has remanded the petition via the taxpayer against the commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) order after condoning a 69-day delay. It was remarked by the tribunal that the non-compliance and the absence of documentation in the order of the CIT (Appeals) furnished [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars in the notice issued under Section 274 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) has [&hellip;]</p>

<p>The deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act on the construction of the new dwelling/residential unit has been permitted by the Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The bench of Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) has marked that the taxpayer had released the burden to prove [&hellip;]</p>

<p>For the FY 2024-25, the gross direct tax collections of the Indian government witnessed a rise of 24% YoY to Rs 8.13 lakh crore, as per the information of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This straight rise arrives in comparison to Rs 6.55 lakh crore collected during the same period in the previous [&hellip;]</p>