103 CAs penalised. 85 debarred. Penalties up to ₹10 crore. A strong and consistent message to audit profession from NFRA since 2022.
103 CAs penalised. 85 debarred. Penalties up to ₹10 crore. A strong and consistent message to audit profession from NFRA since 2022. And almost every single order has the same pattern. A thread every CA must read. 1. First, what is NFRA? The National Financial Reporting Authority is India’s independent audit regulator under Section… […]
Rule 46A Relief: ITAT Mumbai Allows Additional Evidence Missed Due to SPAM Email | AIF Exemption Case Explained
Rule 46A Relief: ITAT Mumbai Allows Additional Evidence Missed Due to SPAM Email | AIF Exemption Case Explained In a landmark ruling emphasizing fairness over rigid procedure, the Mumbai ITAT has held that technical lapses like missing an email due to a spam filter cannot defeat substantive tax claims. The decision in Mahendra Kalyanji Ghelani vs… […]
Penny Stock Additions Deleted: ITAT Hyderabad Rules “No Evidence, No Tax” | Key Relief for Capital Gains Cases
Penny Stock Additions Deleted: ITAT Hyderabad Rules “No Evidence, No Tax” | Key Relief for Capital Gains Cases Allegations of “penny stock” transactions have become a common trigger for additions under Section 69A. But a recent ITAT Hyderabad ruling sends a strong message- mere suspicion or investigation reports cannot replace evidence. In this case,… […]
80G Registration Denied Due to “Religious Objects”? ITAT Clarifies the Law Every Trust Must Know
80G Registration Denied Due to “Religious Objects”? ITAT Clarifies the Law Every Trust Must Know One of the most common-and frustrating-reasons for rejection of Section 80G registration today is this: “Your trust deed contains religious objects, hence 80G cannot be granted.” This approach is not only widespread-it is also legally incorrect. A recent ITAT ruling… […]
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Cannot Be Levied for Mere Disallowance: ITAT Rajkot Clarifies the Law | Key Ruling in Pardes Dehydration Co HUF vs ITO
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Cannot Be Levied for Mere Disallowance: ITAT Rajkot Clarifies the Law | Key Ruling in Pardes Dehydration Co HUF vs ITO Penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) are often issued almost mechanically whenever an addition or disallowance is made in assessment. But a recent ITAT Rajkot ruling has once again reaffirmed a… […]
Old vs New Tax Regime (AY 2026-27): What You Actually Lose-and What You Still Keep
Old vs New Tax Regime (AY 2026-27): What You Actually Lose-and What You Still Keep Every tax season, one confusion refuses to go away: “New tax regime means no deductions at all.” That’s not entirely correct-but it’s not completely wrong either. The truth lies somewhere in between. The new regime removes most deductions, but… […]
2913 Days Delay Condoned: Telangana High Court Puts Natural Justice Above Technicalities
2913 Days Delay Condoned: Telangana High Court Puts Natural Justice Above Technicalities In a remarkable ruling that underscores the primacy of fairness in tax litigation, the Telangana High Court condoned an extraordinary delay of 2913 days (nearly 8 years) in filing an appeal before the ITAT. The decision in ITTA No. 21 of 2026 sends a… […]
Section 69A: ITAT Endorses a Balanced, Evidence-Based Approach over Blanket Additions
Section 69A: ITAT Endorses a Balanced, Evidence-Based Approach over Blanket Additions Shrenik Manish Mehta vs ITO ITA No.: 7324/Mum/2025 Facts: 1. The assessee, an individual, filed return declaring income of ₹6.30 lakh. Case was selected for scrutiny due to large cash payments towards credit card dues. 2. Total credit card payment: ₹27.65 lakh, out… […]
Commission paid to non-residents does not give rise to income chargeable to tax in India: ITAT Ahmedabad
Commission paid to non-residents does not give rise to income chargeable to tax in India: ITAT Ahmedabad Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2065/Ahd/2025) Facts: 1. The assessee is a company engaged in business activities and its return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 was subjected to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) read… […]
Penalty for Foreign Asset Disclosure Cannot Be Imposed for Mere Technical Lapse: Bombay HC
Penalty for Foreign Asset Disclosure Cannot Be Imposed for Mere Technical Lapse: Bombay HC Penalty for Foreign Asset Disclosure Cannot Be Imposed for Mere Technical Lapse: Bombay HC Pr. CIT v. Shrem Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) 485(ITR)790 Facts: 1. The assessee acquired foreign assets. Disclosure was made in original returns for… […]
