Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Prosecution Under Section 276C(2) Quashed for Non-Payment of Self-Assessment Tax: No Willful Evasion Established – Vilas Babanrao Kalokhe v. PCIT (Central) (Bom HC, 2025)
The assessee, engaged in the business of stone crushing and manufacturing precast cement pipes, filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 05.11.2022. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee faile...
Ad Hoc 10% Disallowance of Travelling & Telephone Expenses Deleted: No Discrepancies in Audited Books – Spectrum Talent Management v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi, 2025)
The assessee-firm, engaged in providing staffing solutions and operating in the services sector, claimed travelling and telephone expenses under Section 37(1) for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer obser...
No Penalty on Wife for Non-Disclosure of Joint Foreign Investment When Husband Declares in ITR: PCIT v. Aditi Avinash Athavankar (Bom. HC, 2025)
For Assessment Year 2017-18, the allegation against the respondent-assessee (wife) pertained to non-disclosure of a foreign investment in Schedule FA of her income tax return. The material on record indicated that her na...
Prosecution under Section 276C(2) Quashed for Delayed Self-Assessment Tax: No Willful Evasion Established – Vilas Babanrao Kalokhe v. PCIT (Central) [2025]
The assessee, engaged in stone crushing and manufacturing of precast cement pipes, filed the return of income for AY 2022-23 on 05.11.2022. The self-assessment tax payable under Section 140A was not discharged along with...
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: 318
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 ...