The CBDT vide Circular No. 13\/2024 has extended the due date for furnishing the Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year 2024-25 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act from 31-10-2024 to 15-11-2024.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT further extends due date for filing audit report in Form 10B\/10BB for AY 2023-24 to Nov 10, 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT vide notification dated 18.10.2024 notifies tolerance range under transfer pricing for AY 2024-25.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT vide press release dated 17.10.2024 Issues Revised Guidelines for Compounding Offences under the Income-Tax Act, 1961.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT vide notification dated 16.10.2024 amends Rules 31AA & 37-I; specifies conditions for allowing TCS credit to a person other than the collectee.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT vide notification dated 15.10.2024 notifies new Form 12BAA incorporating details of tax deducted or collected by others.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT vide circular no. 12\/2024 dated 15.10.2024; releases FAQs on Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi-HC)\u00a0PCIT vs. Alchemist Ltd<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Where income of an assessee has both taxable and non-taxable elements, it would be principle of apportionment of expenditure relating to non-taxable income which would have to be identified for purpose of making disallowance under section 14A.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 167 taxmann.com 139 (SC)\u00a0Shriram Investments vs. CIT<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Section\u00a0<\/span>139(5)<\/span>, read with section\u00a0<\/span>254<\/span>, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Return of income – Revised return (Time limit for filing) – Assessment year 1989-90 – Assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) – Thereafter, assessee filed a revised return – Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of said revised return – Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim regarding deduction of deferred revenue expenditure – However, High Court set aside order of Tribunal on ground that after revised return was barred by time, there was no provision to consider claim made by assessee – Whether Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claim made by assessee in revised return filed after time prescribed by section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired – Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue]<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 167 taxmann.com 191 (SC)\u00a0Manoj Jain (HUF) vs. ITO<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n SLP dismissed against ruling that High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A is required to consider as to whether any substantial question of law has arisen for consideration; High Court cannot be converted into an appellate Tribunal to examine factual issue which was never placed by assessee before Assessing Officer or before Commissioner (Appeals) or before Tribunal.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 167 taxmann.com 686 (Visakhapatnam – Trib.) ACIT vs. Siva Jyothi Palam.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Where assessee sold vacant land in October\/November, 2016 and purchased a house property and had paid entire sale consideration on 14-11-2016 and possession of property was also given to assessee on same day itself, merely because registration of house property (new) was delayed or done beyond prescribed time limit of 24 months from date of disposal of capital asset, it could not be a ground to deny exemption claimed under section 54F by assessee.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 167 taxmann.com 459 (Rajkot – Trib.)\u00a0Akhil Bhartiya Pashwachandra Jain Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Exemption)<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Where assessee charitable trust was established with objects of construction and maintenance of crematorium for monks and Saints, to maintain and manage temple, gurumandir, upashraya, construction of canteen, guest house etc., since facilities provided by assessee were intended to serve needs of attendees of various activities without any discrimination based on caste, colour, or creed, thus, its objects were for general public benefit and were not restricted to a particular persons or community or caste, assessee deserved registration under section 12AB.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 167 taxmann.com 291 (SAFEMA – New Delhi)\u00a0DCIT (BP) vs. Domendra Dhariwal<\/i><\/b><\/p>\nORDER NO. F. No. 173\/118\/2024-ITA-I,\u00a0DATED 7-10-2024<\/h4>\n
NOTIFICATION S.O. 4571(E) [NO. 116\/2024\/F. NO. 500\/1\/2014-APA-II]<\/h4>\n
CBDT issued revised guidelines for compounding of offences under Income-tax Act<\/h4>\n
NOTIFICATION G.S.R. 645(E) [NO. 114\/2024\/F. NO. 370142\/21\/2024-TPL]<\/h4>\n
NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 639(E) [NO. 112\/2024\/F. NO. 370142\/19\/2024-TPL]<\/h4>\n
CIRCULAR NO. 12 OF 2024 [F. NO. 370142\/22\/2024-TPL<\/h4>\n
Important Judicial Precedents<\/h2>\n
FA 2022 amendment making Sec. 14A applicable even in absence of exempt income applicable from AY 2022-23: HC<\/h3>\n
AO has no jurisdiction to consider claim made in revised ITR filed after time limit prescribed by sec.139(5): SC<\/h3>\n
HC can\u2019t re-examine factual issues not presented before lower authorities while exercising sec. 260A jurisdiction; SLP dismissed<\/h3>\n
Sec. 54F exemption cannot be denied if new house property is not registered within prescribed time limit: ITAT<\/h3>\n
Trust providing food to poor & needy without any discrimination eligible for sec. 12AB registration: ITAT<\/h3>\n
Properties acquired in name of wife & sons using unaccounted amount to be treated as Benami<\/h3>\n