Every note opens with the holding in one line and closes with what a practitioner should do differently on Monday. Reviewed by retired officers of the Income Tax Department.
34 of 34 entries
No. GST and service tax, collected on behalf of the government, are excluded from sales turnover for §44BB computation.
Notification 34/2024 (19-03-2024) adds §43B(h) disallowance to Clause 22 of Form 3CD; businesses paying micro and small enterprises must reflect it in Clauses 22 and 26.
The new tax regime becomes the default, with fresh disclosures for online-game winnings, political-party donations, disability-related expenses and Agniveer Corpus contributions.
The Court held 45 days reasonable and directed the authority to grant that period for producing the closed account's statements.
Yes. A 145-day delay was condoned where the assessee did not receive orders sent through email, many of which go to spam folders.
Rs. 60 lakh before ITAT, Rs. 2 crore before High Courts, Rs. 5 crore before the Supreme Court; pending appeals below these limits will be withdrawn.
Business income. Where the company's primary objects are building, running and letting malls, rental income from mall properties is business income.
Yes. Where the payment is documented and uncontested by the revenue, interior-decoration cost on the new house is eligible under §54.
No. §50C applies only to transfer of a capital asset being land or building, not to assignment of leasehold rights.
No. An incentive from the Government of India for exploring new markets across the globe is capital in nature and not taxable.
Revenue. Construction cost on leasehold land was allowable as revenue expenditure; Explanation 1 to §32(1) was not attracted.
The AO's flat 1% estimate was unsustainable against the assessee's stated 0.15–0.20%; the Tribunal adopted 0.50%.
No. Compensation paid for loss of employment, not for past services, is a capital receipt outside §17(3) and not taxable.
The portal now shows when the AO or CIT(A) has viewed a submission, a timestamped record closing a recurring evidentiary gap.
No. A §263 revision alleging lack of inquiry is invalid unless the allegation is substantiated with evidence from the assessment record.
No. A non-speaking order requiring 20% remittance in seven days was set aside; the AO must pass a fresh, reasoned order.
No. An SCN granting under three days, against the mandatory minimum of seven, breaches the SOP and natural justice; the §144B order was set aside.
No. An order passed without the show-cause notice mandated by CBDT Instruction 20/2015 is legally invalid, a gross violation of natural justice.
No. Declaring interest per Form 26AS at filing, with variance arising from the bank's delayed reporting, is not under-reporting; §270A does not apply.
No. Absent a finding of §269SS violation supported by independent evidence, beyond the assessee's own letter, §271D penalty cannot be levied.
Business income. Where the excess stock connects to the regularly recorded trading stock, §69's presumptive provisions do not apply.
No. Where search yielded no incriminating material, an addition based solely on the DVO's estimate of construction cost cannot stand.
No. An admission alone is not conclusive; without corroborative material, the addition of Rs. 3 crore share application money fails.
No. Loans reflected in prior audited records (Rs. 3.56 crore of the Rs. 4.96 crore) cannot be added under §68 in a later year.
No. Documents seized from a third party that do not contain the assessee's name cannot sustain an addition under §69C.
No. Additions for purchases or sub-contract expenses cannot rest solely on the supplier's non-filing or non-response; genuineness must be examined.
Not always. Where an uneducated non-taxpayer was unaware of online notices, the reassessment violated natural justice and was set aside despite eight years' delay.
No. Where the joint owner made no financial contribution to the purchase, there is no basis to reopen her assessment.
No. On NCLT approval of a resolution plan, all governmental claims, including income-tax dues, stand conclusively discharged; later §148 notices are invalid.
No. Where the AO fails to verify the authenticity of the triggering information, the §148 notice and consequent assessment are quashed.
The notice is void ab initio. Beyond the three-year limit, sanction must come from the prescribed higher authority; PCIT approval did not suffice.
Yes. Where the §151 approval records no reasons and refers to no material, the sanction and the §148 notice fall together.
No. A §148 notice served on 28-12-2021 by affixture, beyond the statutory period, is invalid; the reassessment was quashed.
No. A §148 reopening issued by the JAO without the §151A faceless mechanism is unsustainable; the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's SLP.