Join TaxGuru’s live GST webinar on 26 July 2025, 6 PM. Experts discuss GST evolution, compliance issues, and reforms. Free on YouTube, open to all.
DCIT Vs Envair Electrodyne Ltd. (ITAT Pune) ITAT find no merit in the Revenue’s argument in principle that section 50C gets attracted even in case of transfer of leasehold rights which does not come within the nature and ambit of specified asset(s) of ‘land or building or both’ in the statutory provision. We thus, conclude […]
Sara Investments Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The contentions of the assessee are that the assessee firm was holding less than 10% of shares in SSPL. It had paid for 9.38% of the shares only which are held in the name of partner Mr. V.K. Dhawan and the partners are holding the shares in their personal […]
Mayank Kumar Garg Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It was submitted by the ld Counsel for the Assessee that the addition of Rs. 16,82,836/- has been made without giving any opportunity of hearing for enhancement of the income. The ld DR could not controvert this arguments. In the light of the aforesaid irregularity and violation of […]
Sopan Developers Vs PCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Amendment for charging the tax on the notional rent with respect to the properties held as stock in trade was applicable from the assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent assessment year. As such, the amended provision is not applicable for the year under consideration. Thus the question of calculating the […]
For effective regulation of the corporate bond market and to enable the issuers and other market stakeholders to get access to all the applicable circulars at one place, this Operational Circular has been prepared.
Held that just because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, it cannot be presumed that an agreement is excluded from the applicability of Section 9
Held that an independent director, not in charge or not responsible for day to day conduct of the business, is not liable for offence by invoking section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
ITO admits that principle of judicial discipline mandates that the lower authorities are bound to follow the orders passed by the higher authorities. He expresses his unconditional apology and regret for the aforesaid observations/findings and prays that the said observations in the impugned order be expunged/deleted.
Patel Brothers & Co Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) Admittedly, the Petitioner Assessee is a manufacturer of Bidis. The short question is whether it is included within the entry Tobacco and Tobacco products in item 16 of the Schedule under the Orissa Entry Tax Act (OET Act). Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks […]
Abhishek Gumber, Proprietor of M/S AG Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST (Delhi High Court) It is clear that once the petitioner‟s refund claim was rejected on the ground that it was founded on forged ITC, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax, interest and perhaps also penalty, in the event the adjudication order is […]
