CA Imam Sadique’s Post

Important Taxpayer Relief: Income tax department has Issued Circulars for Condonation of Delay CBDT - Income tax has issued two critical circulars under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, providing relief for delayed filings of key forms: ✅ Circular No. 16/2024 – Applicable to Forms 9A, 10, 10B, and 10BB for Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards, offering relief to trusts and institutions for past compliance delays. ✅ Circular No. 17/2024 – Applicable to Forms 10-IC and 10-ID for Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23, enabling entities opting for reduced tax rates under Sections 115BAA and 115BAB to rectify delays. Such step by CBDT ensures that taxpayers can claim the benefits they are entitled to, despite past procedural lapses thereby reducing prolonged litigation and giving due benefits to taxpayers. 📌 What Should You Do? Evaluate your past filings, identify any delays, and to ensure you make the most of this relief, act promptly to address compliance and secure the benefits available under these circulars. #TaxUpdate #CBDT #CondonationOfDelay #Compliance #TaxRelief

I feel these constant efforts from CBDT to reduce prolonged litigation is a welcome step and assessee's should make the most out of these opportunities. The Departments should be conducting sessions and awareness campaign to make sure tax payers benefit from such circulars. The Income Tax Department could take this initiative further by leveraging AI technology to identify and target the right taxpayers who are eligible to benefit from these condonation provisions. Such a forward-thinking approach would align perfectly with the mission of a more inclusive and technology-driven tax administration. #CBDT #incometaxindia #Taxupdate

I believe the title of my latest article which ran in State Tax Notes this Monday, Feb. 26, 2024 sums it up nicely: "Zilka: A SALT Case the Court Must Take." Coincidentally, attorneys for the taxpayer (Carter G. Phillips at Sidley and Stewart Weintraub and Jennifer Karpchuk) filed her petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 23, 2024.  In Zilka v. City of Philadelphia, the Court will have to consider whether Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia are constitutionally required to fully credit a Philadelphia resident for the taxes she paid to another state. Diane Zilka is a Philadelphia resident who earned all of her income from working as an attorney just over the border in Wilmington, Delaware. She paid Delaware personal income tax of 5% and Wilmington, DE city income tax of 1.25% on that income, for a total tax rate of 6.5%. As a Pennsylvania and Philadelphia resident, she also paid both Pennsylvania and Philadelphia tax on that same income at the rate of 3.07% and 3.922%, respectively, for a total tax rate of 6.992%. As nearly all states do to avoid double taxation of interstate income, each of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia granted a resident credit. Pennsylvania, however, limited its credit to the Pennsylvania tax rate and Philadelphia limited its credit to the Wilmington city rate. Effectively, this policy of the commonwealth and the city meant that overall, Ms. Zilka was paying about 2% more in taxes on her income than if she simply lived and worked in Philadelphia. Looked at together, the Pennsylvania/Philadelphia regime in effect imposes a greater tax rate on her income just because she was engaged in interstate commerce. That outcome seems clearly unconstitutional and directly conflicts with the US Supreme Court's ruling just a few years ago in Comptroller of Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015). As Justice Alito stated in Wynne, the Maryland regime operated as a "tariff" and as the stinging dissenting opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court mathematically demonstrated so does the Pennsylvania/Philadelphia regime in Zilka. The good news is that the Zilka case was decided by a 3-2 majority, one of whose members even suggested that the US Supreme Court should take up such an appeal citing to a 2022 State Tax Notes article by Professor Hellerstein, the pre-eminent authority on state and local taxes, as to why it is constitutionally irrelevant how a state divides up its tax authority among the state and its political subdivisions for measuring whether a tax policy is unconstitutional or not. The U.S. Supreme Court has four new members who might, however, think differently. Considering the direct conflict with Wynne and the constitutional importance of preventing the states from imposing unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce, Zilka is a state and local tax case appeal the Court must take.  Tax Notes  Audrey E.P. Pollitt  Stewart Weintraub Jennifer Karpchuk Carter G. Phillips

Supreme Court Validates 90,000 Retrospective Income Tax Notices: A Detailed Analysis Read More: https://lnkd.in/dMMxfQiR #SupremeCourtVerdict #IncomeTaxNotices #FinanceAct2021 #JudicialRuling #ReassessmentNotices

Under Section 139(8A) of the Income Tax Act, an updated return can be filed by a taxpayer if they discover any omission or incorrect statement in the original return filed under Section 139. This provision allows taxpayers to rectify any errors or omissions in their original return by filing an updated return within a specified period. Key points about updated return under Section 139(8A) include: 👉 Correction of Errors: Taxpayers can file an updated return to correct any mistakes, inaccuracies, or omissions made in the original return filed under Section 139. 👉 Time Limit: The updated return must be filed within 24 months from the end of relevant AY 👉 Voluntary Disclosure: Filing an updated return under Section 139(8A) is a voluntary action taken by the taxpayer to rectify errors or omissions. It reflects the taxpayer's commitment to maintaining accurate tax compliance. 👉 Legal Compliance: Filing an updated return ensures that the taxpayer complies with the legal requirement of providing correct and complete information to the tax authorities. It helps avoid any potential penalties or legal consequences associated with incorrect filings. 🔓 Overall, Section 139(8A) provides taxpayers with an opportunity to rectify errors or omissions in their original tax return filings, promoting tax compliance and accuracy in reporting income and taxes. Reproduced Section 139(8A) from Income Tax Act 1961 and Summarized with the help of Questions and Answers to make readers easy to understand. Presented by our honorable partners Rajasekhar Reddy M & CA Koushik Reddy #updatedreturn #incometaxact1961 #returnofincome #assessment #taxpayer #duedate #corrections #noncompliance #interest #Tax #latefee #incometaxefiling

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐀𝐒 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞? If you believed the 2016 Tax Court 𝘕𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘬𝘦 memo, a valid notice of deficiency: 🔵requires no particular form; 🔵"must state that the Commissioner has determined the amount of deficiency for a particular year;" and 🔵 must "specify the amount or provide information necessary to compute it." (T. C. Memo. 2016-78). But, this week, the Tax Court disagrees when Taxpayer argues that an "email from the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and specifically, an attachment thereto which provided a ‘Summary of Tax Due and Owing’ for Shona Pendse for tax years 2011, 2012, 2019, 2020, and 2021,” is the equivalent of a notice of deficiency (attached 👇). In its decision, the Tax Court does make mention of IRC Sec. 6212, which is interesting. IRC Sec. 6212(a) happens to require that a notice of deficiency “shall include a notice to the taxpayer of the taxpayer’s right to contact a local office of the ⭐ taxpayer advocate ⭐ and the location and phone number of the appropriate office.” So many questions remain. #taxlaw #tax #taxcontroversy #taxcourt Taxplaining🎙️ Ashlee Hall

Participate in research about Australia's two Income Tax Acts. UNSW Sydney and Curtin University survey Unfinished business? Assessing and addressing the burden of the split tax code For nearly 30 years, since the late 1990s, the tax profession has had to deal with tax legislative provisions spread across two major statutes. There is little evidence or knowledge about the additional burdens imposed on tax professionals by this split, or whether tax professionals have an appetite for the completion of the consolidation of key tax legislation into one statute. Researchers at UNSW Sydney (Dr Sally Joseph & Chris Evans) and Curtin University (Helen Hodgson) are conducting an ethics-approved project looking at the ongoing challenges of working with the dual Income Tax Assessment Acts. Specifically, we are seeking to explore and understand the views of key stakeholders on these issues.  That is where YOU are needed. To have viable results, we need as many respondents as possible to complete the survey. It will take about 12 minutes and the survey can be accessed:  https://lnkd.in/gD8Vdhas

🚨 Why Are Taxpayers Receiving Additional Tax Demand Notices on Capital Gains? 💼📈 If you recently filed your Income Tax Return for FY 2023-24 and have reported capital gains, you might have received an unexpected tax demand notice. 😕 This sudden surge in notices is creating confusion among taxpayers. Let's dive into what’s happening: Many taxpayers availed the benefit under Section 87A, which provides a rebate of up to ₹25,000 on taxable income up to ₹7 lakh, resulting in no or reduced tax liability. Most of them filed their returns accordingly. ✅ 💡 But what changed? On July 5, 2024, the Income Tax Department revised its interpretation of Section 87A. Under the new interpretation, incomes subject to special tax rates (like short-term capital gains on shares and long-term capital gains on assets such as property) were excluded from the ₹25,000 rebate. This change led to taxpayers receiving additional tax demand notices. 🚨💸 This unexpected move has left many questioning: Can the tax law be subject to such abrupt changes in interpretation? 🤔 Why weren't these exclusions made clear when the section was introduced? It’s important to note that prior to July 5, 2024, both the IT department’s utility and expert opinions supported the taxpayer-friendly interpretation. Yet, the revised view has now imposed an extra burden on many small taxpayers, leading to frustration and distrust in the system. 😓 We urge the authorities to reconsider this approach, as it disproportionately affects small taxpayers who relied on the earlier interpretation. Small taxpayers deserve fairness and clarity. 💬✨ Have you received a notice? 📄 Let us assist you in navigating this! Reach out to us at 📞 7665156000 or visit www.apkireturn.com for expert help! 💼👨💻 #IncomeTax #TaxNotice #CapitalGains #TaxFiling #Section87A #ApkiReturn #TaxExpert #IncomeTax2024 #tax

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that for tax years before 2023, the state did not conform to IRC Section 1031 for personal income tax. As a result, taxpayers who engaged in like-kind exchanges were required to pay state income tax in the year of the exchange, even if they deferred gains for federal tax purposes. Find out how this ruling could affect your tax situation. https://okt.to/cbBMDh #TaxUpdate #IRC1031 #Pennsylvania #TaxLaw

Important Alert for Ohio Taxpayers! The Ohio Department of Taxation is addressing a processing issue affecting 2023 tax returns with Form 1099-INT interest income. If you received an unexpected refund or adjustment notice since mid-September, this could affect you. Read our latest article for critical details and next steps. Don't cash those refund checks without checking with your advisor first! Contact your Rea advisor with questions. We're here to help navigate this situation. #OhioTax #TaxAlert #AccountingNews #ReaCPA