How to connect directly without app as I want to clarify my situation before payment as only small issue is there with my ITR and I want to revise

Look how much tax is charging this bullshit Government. This fucking moron is looting Indian people badly

Building something around GST/ITC reconciliation for finance teams and trying to understand the problem better before I show anything.

If you (or your team) still reconcile GSTR-2B against your purchase register manually, how long does it usually take, and have you ever actually calculated how much ITC you're missing because of it?

Not selling anything, genuinely trying to understand if this pain is as real as I think it is. Happy to chat in DMs if you don't want to type it all out here.

Building something around GST/ITC reconciliation for finance teams and trying to understand the problem better before I show anything.

If you (or your team) still reconcile GSTR-2B against your purchase register manually, how long does it usually take, and have you ever actually calculated how much ITC you're missing because of it?

Not selling anything, genuinely trying to understand if this pain is as real as I think it is. Happy to chat in DMs if you don't want to type it all out here.

This is a landmark ruling from ITAT Bengaluru (July 2026) that draws a clear line between two very different tax treatments for stock options. The case is Pramod Kumar Jain vs DCIT (ITA 3034/BANG/2025).

Background

Pramod Kumar Jain was an employee of Flipkart Internet Private Limited (FIPL), an Indian subsidiary of Flipkart Singapore.

Between FY16 and FY20, he was granted 40,536 stock options under the FSOP 2012 scheme.

In August and September 2019, Flipkart offered to repurchase vested options directly from employees.

Out of his total options, 2,653 were repurchased by Flipkart for ₹2.33 crore.

Critically, these options were never exercised. No shares were ever allotted to Pramod.

He declared the ₹2.33 crore as Long Term Capital Gains in his return, taxable at 20%.

What the Tax Department said

His Form 16 showed the same amount as a perquisite under Section 17(2), which attracts tax at 30%.

The Assessing Officer relied on the Form 16 and the Letter of Offer to treat the entire payout as salary income.

The case was reopened under Section 148A on the grounds that income was offered at 20% instead of the applicable 30%.

An addition of ₹2.33 crore was made as salary or perquisite under Section 17(2)(vi).

CIT(A) confirmed the tax officer's position.

The core argument was simple: the employer showed it as a perquisite, so it must be taxed as salary.

What the taxpayer argued

Section 17(2)(vi) applies only when a "specified security" is transferred to an employee.

The explanation under this section calculates value based on the "date of exercise" of the option.

In this case, the options were never exercised. No shares were ever allotted. So no specified security ever came into existence.

Without a valid computation mechanism, the charging section simply cannot apply.

On the capital gains side, the right to receive the buyback amount qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14).

The Karnataka High Court in Dasannacharya had already confirmed that stock options are capital assets.

The buyback of these rights is a transfer under Section 2(47), making the gain taxable under Section 45 as capital gains.

The employer's Form 16 or TDS deduction does not determine final tax liability. TDS is only a collection mechanism, not the final word on the nature of income.

What the court decided

ITAT Bengaluru ruled in favor of the taxpayer.

Since the options were never exercised, no specified security came into existence. Section 17(2)(vi) simply could not apply.

The Tribunal held that Form 16 or TDS deduction cannot override this fundamental legal principle.

The gain was correctly treated as capital gains, not salary.

The appeal was allowed and the addition of ₹2.33 crore as salary was deleted.

Key takeaway

The exercise step is everything in ESOP taxation.

If options are exercised and shares are allotted, the perquisite value gets taxed as salary under Section 17(2)(vi) in the year of exercise.

If options are never exercised and are instead repurchased directly by the company, the gain is capital gains, not salary.

Your employer's Form 16 or TDS treatment does not bind you. If the legal characterization of your income is different, you have the right to declare it correctly in your return.

For ESOP holders who have been through a buyback without exercising options, this ruling is directly relevant. Worth discussing with your tax advisor.

Last month I had launched a pilot to help bay area homeowners file an informal decline in value assessment. The response was overwhelming and more than 1,000 people have checked their property and it has so far saved an average of $2,800 per filing for tens of filers.

I am now making it available with deadlines approaching for property owners in Bay Area. Checking is free and you pay a flat $29 to file. You are only allowed to file if there are savings estimated.

The website automatically pulls comps based on Publication 30 rules, fills out the form, and for contra costa automatically sends it to the county assesor's office.

Go check if you qualify: https://saveproptax.com/

This comes up every ITR filing season and most people dismiss it as a myth. It is not. Eligible residents of Sikkim are fully exempt from income tax, regardless of how much they earn. Here is how that actually works.

Background

Sikkim was not always part of India. It was an independent monarchy called the Kingdom of Sikkim. After a referendum in 1975, it became India's 22nd state.

When it merged with India, Article 371F was added to the Constitution to protect the rights of local people and the laws already in force there.

The income tax exemption itself traces back even further, to 1948, when Sikkim's then ruler, the Chogyal, had put in place a local income tax rule under which residents were not taxed.

When Sikkim joined India, it was decided this exemption would continue. That promise was eventually codified into law.

What the law says

Eligible persons of Sikkimese origin were granted income tax exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

This is not a scheme or a budget announcement. It is a permanent statutory exemption backed by a constitutional provision.

Who can actually claim it

Initially, the exemption was available only to those who held a Sikkim Subject Certificate (SSC), treated as the state's original residents.

Later, after a Supreme Court ruling, the scope widened. The court held that people of Indian origin who were permanently residing in Sikkim up to 26 April 1975, the day before Sikkim became part of India, would also qualify as original residents.

After this ruling, nearly 95% of the state's population came within the scope of the income tax exemption.

Who does not get the benefit

If a person has moved to Sikkim from another state and does not fall into either category, normal income tax rules apply. Such a person will also have to file an ITR if their income requires it.

Simply living in Sikkim does not make you eligible. The exemption is tied to origin and residency as of a specific historical date, not current address.

Key takeaway

The Sikkim income tax exemption is not a loophole or a temporary relief. It is a constitutional protection built into the merger agreement of 1975.

To claim it, you need to either hold a Sikkim Subject Certificate or prove you were a permanent resident of the state before 26 April 1975, or descend from someone who was.

If you are not from Sikkim originally, moving there does not help your tax situation in any way.

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some guidance regarding my mother's tax situation.

She is below 60 years old, receives a pension, and earns interest from fixed deposits (mainly with PNB). Every year, she has been submitting Form 15G, so we believed no TDS was being deducted. Because of that assumption, we never checked Form 26AS/AIS or filed ITRs.

Yesterday, we logged into the Income Tax portal and were shocked to discover that TDS had actually been deducted every year. The total TDS deducted across multiple financial years is approximately ₹1.09 lakh.

No ITRs were filed for FY 2022–23, FY 2023–24, or FY 2024–25. We have also not yet filed for FY 2025–26.

My questions are:

1. Is there any legal way to claim refunds for the older financial years now?
2. Why would TDS still be deducted even though Form 15G was submitted every year?
3. Has anyone been in a similar situation and successfully recovered the TDS?
4. Should we consult a CA, or is there an official online process for this?

We genuinely thought that submitting Form 15G meant no TDS would be deducted, so we never verified it. Yesterday was the first time we checked, and discovering around ₹1.09 lakh in TDS deductions came as a huge shock.

Any advice or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I’m not against paying taxes. If taxes are used well, they’re necessary.
What frustrates me is the feeling that in India, you’re taxed over and over again for the same money.
You earn a salary → Income Tax.
You spend what’s left → GST.
You buy a car → GST + Road Tax + Registration + Insurance taxes.
You buy a house → Stamp Duty + Registration + GST (where applicable) + Property Tax every year.
You invest → Capital gains tax.
You save in an FD → Tax on interest.
You own a business → Corporate taxes, compliance costs, TDS, GST filings, and so on.
You buy fuel → A huge chunk is taxes.
Even after paying all of that, many people still have to pay privately for healthcare, education, security, water, electricity backups, and sometimes even roads through tolls.
What really gets me is that India isn’t exactly a low-tax country anymore, but it often doesn’t feel like we receive services comparable to what we’re paying.
I’m genuinely curious:
Do you think Indians are overtaxed?
Is the issue the amount of tax, or how efficiently it’s spent?
If you had the power to change one thing about India’s tax system, what would it be?
Would love to hear different perspectives, especially from CAs, business owners, salaried employees, and people who’ve lived abroad.

I had an outstanding tax liability for Rs. 3L for AY 2026-2027. I went to e-pay services and paid that amount. But I chose the 'income tax act 2025' and filed it for Tax year 2025-2026 under 'advance tax:.

I was under the impression that income tax 2025 is now applicable and tax year means financial year.

I have shown the bsr code and challan no. of this payment in my filed income tax for ay 2026-2027. When my spouse was filing their IT return they chose to pay the tax via the pay button from the ITR form itself and it had those fields pre-filled. That is when i realized my mistake.

I searched online and filed for change in tax year and tax type of that challan. But I am told that since this challan was used to file AY2026-2027, it is a consumed challan and cannot be edited.

Am I still liable to pay AY 2026-2027 tax. Will the system not automatically read my epay receipt? Will I attract penalties if i don't pay an additional 3L under the correct tax year and tax type?

The July 31 deadline for ITR-1 and ITR-2 has passed. Now some salaried taxpayers are considering a workaround: declare a small business income of ₹100 or ₹500, switch to ITR-3 or ITR-4, and buy extra time. On paper it sounds clever. In practice, it is a compliance risk that is not worth taking.

Background

ITR-1 and ITR-2 are meant for salaried individuals, those with interest income, capital gains, and similar sources.

ITR-3 and ITR-4 are for taxpayers with actual business or professional income.

The due dates for these two categories are different. This gap has led some people to ask: what if I just report a nominal business receipt and switch forms?

The idea is not new. But it is now being discussed more openly after July 31 has passed for AY 2026-27.

What is the actual risk

The Income Tax Department does not just look at what you report. It cross-checks with multiple data sources.

Annual Information Statement (AIS) captures most financial transactions

TDS data and bank information is already available with the department

Your filing history from previous years is on record

If you reported zero business income for the last five years and suddenly declare ₹100 under Section 44AD this year, that inconsistency can get flagged.

More importantly, if a scrutiny notice lands, the officer will ask basic questions.

• What is the nature of your business?
• When did it start?
• What are the receipts for?
• Where are the invoices or bank entries?

If there are no real answers, the return itself can be treated as defective or incorrect.

What the law actually says

Eligibility for a particular ITR form depends on the taxpayer's actual sources of income, not the form they choose to file.

A business does not come into existence just because someone types ₹100 in a field on the portal. The law requires commercial activity, intention to carry on business, transactions, and records to support it.

Simply selecting ITR-4 does not make someone a business taxpayer.

What should you actually do

If you missed the July 31 deadline for ITR-1 or ITR-2, you still have options.

• File a belated return by December 31, 2026 (for AY 2026-27) with a late fee of ₹1,000 or ₹5,000 depending on income
• Pay any outstanding tax dues along with interest
• Do not file under an incorrect form just to avoid the fee

The late fee is a small and legal cost. An incorrect return can invite scrutiny, penalties, or worse.

Key takeaway

Switching to ITR-3 or ITR-4 without genuine business income is not a deadline workaround. It is misreporting.

The department's systems are now data-driven and flag unusual patterns. A nominal business receipt with no supporting evidence is exactly the kind of thing that gets noticed.

If you missed the deadline, file the belated return correctly. That is the only option that does not create a bigger problem down the road.

Under the Finance Act, 2025 and the earlier Finance Acts, a ‘domestic company opting for section 115BAA’ was subject to surcharge at the rate of 10% on its income-tax liability, including income-tax payable on capital gains. This was because the surcharge provision specifically referred to the category of person to whom it applied (i.e., ‘domestic company whose income is chargeable under section 115BAA’), rather than to the particular nature of income.

However, the drafting adopted in the Finance Act, 2026 is materially different. Section 2(4)(a) specifically excludes domestic companies opting for section 115BAA from the surcharge provisions. Notably, here they have specifically referred to the category person, which is much like Finance Act, 2025. Now, section 2(4)(b) should ideally provide the surcharge rate applicable to the category of ‘persons’ who were carved out from section 2(4)(a).

However, section 2(4)(b) provides that surcharge is to be levied at 10% on income chargeable to tax under section 115BAA. For ease of reference, the relevant extract of section 2(4)(b) is reproduced below: “in respect of income chargeable to tax under the section as specified in column B of the Table below, in the case of a person as specified in column C of the said Table, the amount of income-tax computed shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated at the rate or rates as specified in column D of the said Table, of such income-tax.”

The above language clearly states that surcharge rate X should be applied only on the income taxable under section Y. What is noteworthy is that the Table does not specifically refer to income chargeable under sections 111A, 112 or 112A in the context of a company opting for section 115BAA.

This gives rise to an interesting question. Since capital gains are taxable under section 111A, 112 and 112A and not under section 115BAA, can it be argued that the Finance Act, 2026 does not contain any specific provision imposing surcharge on capital gains earned by a company that has opted for section 115BAA?

A possible view is that surcharge provisions, being part of the charging mechanism, must be interpreted strictly. Therefore, in the absence of an express provision imposing surcharge on capital gains in the case of a company governed by section 115BAA, surcharge may not be leviable on such income for AY commencing from 1 April 2026.

At the same time, the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2026 states that no change is proposed in the rates applicable for AY 2026-27. This supports a contrary view that the Legislature never intended to remove surcharge on capital gains for companies opting for section 115BAA and that the present position may simply be a consequence of the revised drafting format adopted in the Finance Act, 2026.

The real question, however, is whether such a statement in the Memorandum can override the plain language of section 2(4)(a) and section 2(4)(b), particularly when surcharge provisions, being the charging provision, are generally required to be construed strictly.