« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  Taxman's return gift is Rs 40,000 cr... SC decides determinant for excise duty exemption... » CIT appeal dismissed March, 25th 2008 The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of chit fund companies (Commissioner vs Bilahari Investment Ltd).   The companies were following the completed contract method of accounting and the authorities had so far accepted this method. But now, they have turned around and insisted that they should have adopted the percentage of completion method of accounting.   Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court said: Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting which the department had earlier accepted. It is only in those cases where the department records a finding that the method adopted by the assessee results in distortion of profits that the department can insist on substitution of the existing method.   This was not the case here, and the change would be revenue neutral even if the new method is adopted.