Tax News & Updates
Stay informed with the latest in tax and compliance
| Due Date | Form / Return | Department | Description | Days Left |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 Oct 2026 |
ITC-04
Apr - Sep 26 |
GST | 0d | |
| 29 Oct 2026 |
AOC-4
FY 25-26 |
MCA | 4d | |
| 29 Oct 2026 |
MGT-15
FY 25-26 |
MCA | 4d | |
| 29 Oct 2026 |
AOC-4 XBRL
FY 25-26 |
MCA | 4d | |
| 30 Oct 2026 |
Form No. 141
Sep, 26 |
Income Tax | 5d | |
| 30 Oct 2026 |
Form 8
FY 25-26 |
MCA | 5d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
TDS Return
Jul - Sep, 26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Form No. 3CEJA
FY 25-26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
TCS Return
Jul - Sep, 26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Form No. 144
Jul - Sep, 26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Rules 33,34 & 35
FY 25-26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Form No. 175
Jul - Sep, 26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Form II
Jul - Sep, 26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Form No. 10BBD
FY 25-26 |
Income Tax | 6d | |
| 31 Oct 2026 |
Form No. 3CEAB
- |
Income Tax | 6d |
New Rule 281A and Form 173A Notified for Exemption on Government Securities
Notification Of Rule 281A And Form No. 173A In Respect Of Exemptions Provided Un... .pdfGSTN Releases FAQs on 57th GST Council Recommendations
View Source (gst.gov.in)e-Invoicing Extended to RCM Self-Invoices (RCMDOM & RCMIMP)
View Source (gst.gov.in)GSTAT Issues SOP for Transfer of Appeals
GSTAT Issues SOP for Filing of Reply by Respondents
TAX AUDIT DUE DATE EXTENDED
CBDT has extended the Tax Audit Report due date for AY 2026-27. Earlier Due Date: 30 September 2026 Extended Due Date: 21 October 2026 The extension applies to persons covered by the relevant audit provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Source: CBDT Press Release dated 28 September 2026
ITR DUE DATE EXTENDED FOR AUDIT CASES
For AY 2026-27, CBDT has extended the due date for furnishing the Return of Income by persons covered under the applicable audit category of Explanation 2 to Section 139(1). 31 October 2026 to 21 November 2026 Note: This is not a general extension for all ITR filers.
CBDT Revises Registration Rules & Extends Deadline
CBDT Introduces New TDS Reporting for Property Bought from Non-Residents
NEW DSC TOKEN? GST PORTAL USERS MUST UPDATE emSigner
Income Tax Recovery: Arrest & Detention Provisions Removed
EPFO Wage Ceiling Raised from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000
UPI Update: MDR on Select Merchant Transactions Above Rs 2,000
GST Update: Appeals Now Allowed Against NIL/Zero Demand Orders
MCA Extends Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme (CCFS-2026) till 15th Sep, 2026
MCA NOTIFIES KEY AMENDMENTS TO IND AS
Foreign Remittances Under IT Scanner
CBDT NOTIFIES FOREIGN ASSETS DISCLOSURE SCHEME, 2026
New Settlement Board Proposed
Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Writ Petitions as Effective Statutory Appellate Remedy Was Available
Decision
The SC dismissed the SLPs, finding no grounds to interfere with the HCs judgment.
The statutory appellate remedy was considered effective for examining factual disputes, evidentiary issues, and allegations of procedural violations.
The Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petitions, including the parallel writ, while preserving the assessees right to raise their contentions before the appellate authority.
ITC cannot be denied under Section 16(4) when returns qualify for the extended cut-off under Section 16(5).
Decision
The Kerala HC held that the petitioner was eligible for the benefit of Section 16(5), as both returns were filed before the prescribed cut-off date.
The Court quashed the order denying ITC, holding that rejection u/s 16(4) was unsustainable in view of Section 16(5).
The assessing authority was directed to reconsider the claim and grant ITC, subject to fulfilment of other applicable statutory conditions.
Section 153D approvals without proper application of mind cannot sustain search assessments.
Decision
The SC declined to interfere with the HCs order, finding no grounds for interference.
The SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision against the defective approvals u/s 153D.
The ruling reinforces that prior approval u/s 153D requires genuine application of mind and cannot be a mere mechanical formality.
Limitation Governed by Substantive SCN and Adjudication Order Dates, Not DRC-01/DRC-07
Decision
The Delhi HC held that limitation is determined by the dates of the substantive SCNs and adjudication orders, not merely by the later dates of DRC-01 and DRC-07 summaries.
The Court rejected the limitation challenge based solely on the summary dates and held that the remaining factual and legal disputes should be raised before the statutory Appellate Authority.
The writ petitions were disposed of, granting liberty to the assessee to appeal u/s 107 of the CGST Act, without the Court expressing an opinion on the merits of the remaining disputes.
Ex Parte Order Quashed for Improper Service of Show Cause Notice
Decision
The Court held that uploading the notice without separate intimation, resulting in denial of an opportunity to respond, violated natural justice.
The ex parte adjudication order dated 16.01.2025 was quashed and set aside.
The authority was directed to consider the petitioners reply, provide a hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order within the prescribed timelines.
GST Refund Withholding Upheld Where Pending Anti-Evasion Investigation Indicated Fraud and Revenue Risk
Decision
An ongoing investigation can constitute any other proceedings for Section 54(11).
The Commissioner had sufficient contemporaneous material to form an opinion of possible fraud/malfeasance affecting revenue.
The Court upheld the withholding of refund and dismissed the writ petition, leaving disputed issues to the GSTAT.
SCN Cannot Be Quashed When Statutory Adjudication Has Commenced
Decision
The Court held that the SCN does not constitute a final determination of tax liability and the adjudication process was still pending.
All objections, including alleged coercion, limitation, computation, jurisdiction, and appropriation of DRC-03, could be raised before the Adjudicating Authority.
Therefore, the Court declined to interfere at the SCN stage and left all substantive issues open for adjudication.
Classification and Exemption Dispute Requires Adjudication Through Statutory Appeal
Decision
Classification, exemption eligibility and alleged SCN-order variance involved factual and legal issues requiring appellate examination.
Alleged natural justice violations were not apparent ex facie and could also be examined by the Appellate Authority.
The Writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the Section 107 statutory appeal, and the time spent in writ proceedings was excluded for limitation purposes.
COVID-19 Delay Cannot Waive Statutory GST Penalty Where Tax and Interest Are Not Paid Within 30 Days of SCN
Decision
The Court held that the 10% penalty could be waived only if tax and interest were paid within 30 days of receipt of the SCN.
Since the petitioner failed to make payment within the prescribed 30-day period, there was no statutory basis for waiving the penalty.
The Court found no infirmity in the penalty order and declined to interfere, disposing of the writ petition without costs.
Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of Section 148 Notice for Want of Valid Sanction from Prescribed Authority
Decision
The Court held that although TOLA extended the limitation period up to 31-03-2021, it did not modify the requirement of obtaining approval from the authority specified u/s 151.
For the notice issued on 28-03-2021, sanction from the Joint Commissioner was mandatory, and approval granted by the Commissioner (Exemption) was therefore invalid.
The SC dismissed the Revenues SLP and upheld the quashing of the section 148 notice and consequential reassessment proceedings.
Genuine Share Transactions Cannot Be Treated as Bogus Merely on Suspicion of Price Manipulation
Decision
The Court held that suspicion or unusual price appreciation alone cannot establish that genuine stock-market transactions are bogus.
The Revenue was required to produce positive and reliable evidence connecting the assessees with the alleged manipulation, which it failed to do.
The Court upheld deletion of the section 68 additions and the consequential penalty, dismissed the Revenues appeals, and confirmed the Tribunals findings.
Blocked ITC under Rule 86A cannot be used for mandatory appeal pre-deposit
Decision
The Delhi HC held that blocked ITC under Rule 86A cannot be treated as payment or appropriation towards the pre-deposit, as the credit cannot be debited while the restriction remains in force.
The petitioner was permitted to seek removal or modification of the Rule 86A restriction and could use any otherwise available and debitable ECL credit for the pre-deposit; it was not required to pay the pre-deposit exclusively through the cash ledger.
Reopening Not Permissible Where Issues Were Examined and Accepted in Original Scrutiny
Decision
The HC held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated merely because the subsequent AO disagreed with the view taken by the predecessor AO.
Since the issues had already been examined during the original scrutiny assessment and the assessee had furnished satisfactory explanations, reopening the assessment on the same issues amounted to a mere change of opinion.
The Court upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and Tribunal annulling the reassessment proceedings and rejected the Revenues appeal.
Charitable Trust Entitled to Section 11(1A) Exemption on Sale Proceeds Invested in FD Despite Omission in Return
Decision
The Court held that investment of the sale proceeds in a bank fixed deposit for six months or more constitutes acquisition of another capital asset for purposes of Section 11(1A).
The Court held that an inadvertent omission to claim a legitimate exemption in the return does not prevent relief u/s 264, particularly where the assessee has acted bona fide and disclosed all relevant facts.
The rejection order was quashed and set aside, and the trust was granted the Section 11(1A) exemption with refund of excess tax and applicable interest u/s 244A.
Reassessment Quashed for Inadequate Inquiry into Foreign Remittance Reconciliation
Decision
The Delhi HC held that the dispute appeared to result from unreconciled figures and inadequate information being furnished to the assessee.
The Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order and consequential Section 148 notice, observing that the inquiry at that stage was limited.
The matter was restored to the Section 148A(1) stage, directing the AO to provide the information, consider the assessees reply, and grant a personal hearing before passing a fresh order.
ESOP expense held allowable; subsequent Merchant Banker requirement cannot invalidate earlier CA valuation
Decision
The Delhi HC held that ESOP expenditure was allowable as business expenditure and upheld the ITATs deletion of the Rs. 51.48 crore disallowance.
For AY 2018-19, the Court held that the requirement of Merchant Banker valuation was not applicable, since the CBDT notification dated 24-05-2018 operated from the subsequent financial year.
The Court therefore upheld the deletion of the Rs. 62.72 lakh addition u/s 56(2)(viib) and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
Section 6(2)(b) Bar Not Applicable Where Central GST Proceedings Involve Distinct Fraudulent ITC Allegations
Decision
The Court held that the same subject matter means the same liability or contravention, not merely the same assessee, period or ITC amount.
The Central proceedings were founded on distinct investigative material concerning alleged bogus transactions and fraudulent ITC.
Section 6(2)(b) was therefore not attracted, and the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Export Quota Premium to be Excluded under Explanation (baa) for 80HHC Deduction
Decision
The SC held that Section 263 can be invoked where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
The Court noted that the HC had properly considered the dispute regarding the treatment of export quota premium and the applicability of Explanation (baa).
The SC upheld the HCs judgment and dismissed the assessees appeals, thereby sustaining the CITs exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263.
Final ITSC Settlement Prevents Reopening of 80-IB(10) Deduction through Section 148
Decision
The SC held that a final Section 245D(4) settlement order attains finality, and matters covered by it cannot subsequently be reopened by the AO u/s 148.
If the Revenue alleges fraud or misrepresentation, it must use the mechanism u/s 245D(6) rather than resorting to independent reassessment proceedings.
The Court therefore dismissed the Revenues appeal, confirming that the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.
Amended Section 147 Permits Reassessment of Subsequently Discovered Escaped Income
Decision
The Court held that amended section 147 permits the AO to reassess subsequently noticed escaped income during pending reassessment proceedings.
Such subsequent income may be based on material obtained from outside the original reassessment proceedings, and fresh section 148A compliance is not required.
The Explanation to section 147 was held valid, and the writ petition challenging the reassessment was dismissed.
Other
2 days ago
Is Your Digital Signature (DSC) Safe?
Other
1 month ago
BANKS TO REMAIN OPEN ON SUNDAY 27 Sep 26!
Other
1 month ago
5 DAYS OF BANKING DISRUPTION AHEAD?
Other
1 month ago
Builders Must Convey Proportionate Land Rights to Housing Societies: Bombay HC
Other
1 month ago
Investing Through UPI? Different MDR Rule Applies
Other
1 month ago
RBI Clarifies Principal Business Rules for NBFCs
Other
1 month ago
Special UPI MDR: Just ₹5 Per Transaction
Other
1 month ago
UPI MDR: 0.4% But Maximum ₹300
Other
1 month ago
UPI MDR Rules Revised: What Merchants Need to Know
Other
1 month ago
UPI MDR Can Be Claimed as Business Expense
Other
4 months ago
PwC Review Highlights Accounting Concerns at IndusInd Bank
Other
6 months ago