Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
No Penalty for Non-Disclosure of Joint Foreign Investment When Husband Declared It: PCIT v. Aditi Avinash Athavankar (2025) – Discretion under Black Money Act Upheld
No penalty on wife for not disclosing foreign investment if husband duly declared it in his ITR
For assessment year 2017-2018, the allegation against the respondent–assessee (wife) was non-disclosure of a foreign inve...
Reassessment Limitation under New Regime: Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Jain v. Union of India Applies Rajeev Bansal (SC) to Quash Time-Barred AY 2016-17 Notice
CA. Atul Agrawal, Former Vice Chairman CIRC
31/12/2025
| 0 COMMENTS
| VISITOR'S COUNT: 526
Reassessment Limitation under the New Regime: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s First Pronouncement on the issueIn Dinesh Jain v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has examined the...
Interest u/s 220(2) Not Leviable Before Fresh Section 156 Demand Notice: ITAT Mumbai in Samsara Shipping (P) Ltd. v. ITO [TS-1710-ITAT-2025(Mum)]
Levy of interest under section 220(2) for period prior to fresh demand notice under section 156, unsustainable
Mumbai ITAT allows Assessee’s appeal observing that the levy of interest under section 220(2) in the prese...
No Tax on Trust with Overall Deficit Even if Activities Alleged Commercial: ITAT Mumbai in The Mysore Association Bombay v. ITO [TS-1713-ITAT-2025(Mum)]
No tax on Trust with overall deficit even if activity alleged to be commercialAssessee trust is registered under section 12A of the Act and filed its return of income declaring total income at Nil claiming exemption unde...
Bombay HC Quashes Assessment for Granting Only 3 Days to Respond: Minimum 7-Day Response to SCN Mandatory as per CBDT SOP in Dhiraj Lakhamshi Shah v. NFAC (AY 2020-21)
Mumbai High Court holds that assessment order passed with only three days’ response time to show cause notice issued under Section 144B(6)(xvi) violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed notwithstanding time-...
Levy of Interest u/s 220(2) Held Invalid Prior to Fresh Demand Notice u/s 156: ITAT Mumbai in Samsara Shipping (P) Ltd. v. ITO (AY 2021-22)
Mumbai ITAT allows Assessee’s appeal observing that the levy of interest under section 220(2) in the present case is impermissible in terms of statutory provisions; Highlighting that in the demand notice under section ...
Government Rehabilitation Subsidy Held Capital Receipt: Purpose Test Applied | Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. DCIT (Madras HC, 2025)
Government subsidy under rehabilitation scheme, a capital receipt not revenue receipt; Purpose test to be appliedFor the assessment year 2007-08, the appellant filed its return of income admitting a loss of Rs. 58,46,770...
Vocational Training as ‘Education’ under Section 2(15): Karnataka HC Allows Section 11 Exemption Despite Surplus | Deshpande Education Trust v. ACIT (2025)
Vocational training for rural youth qualifies as ‘education’ under section 2(15); Surplus generation no bar to exemption under section 11.
The appellant is a registered trust under Section 12AA of the Act engaged in...
Eligibility of Partner’s Remuneration for Presumptive Taxation u/s 44ADA: ITAT Delhi Allows 44ADA Benefit to Chartered Accountant Partner | Ranu Gupta vs ACIT (2025)
The appeal before the ITAT Delhi (SMC Bench) in the case of Sh. Ranu Gupta vs ACIT, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi for AY 2018-19 concerns the applicability of Section 44ADA to remuneration received by a Chartered A...
Reopening Notice by Jurisdictional AO Instead of Faceless AO Quashed: Rahul Bagrecha v. DCIT (2025) | Invalid Section 148 Notice & Assessment Under Faceless Regime
Reopening notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was to be quashed. The Jurisdicational Assessing Officer issued reopening notice dated 24.03.2024 to the asses...