Explore the taxation rules for leave encashment, covering taxability during service, retirement, and for legal heirs. Stay updated with the latest CBDT relief, raising the exemption limit to ₹25 lakh for non-government salaried employees, effective April 1, 2023. Learn about the conditions under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act and stay informed about the tax benefits available to employees for leave encashment.
Delhi High court held that attachment of bank account under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 merely on the basis of suspicion and without any tangible material is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee (M/s. Cane Development Council Titawi) being a local authority are not chargeable to tax in terms of section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order passed against a non-existing company is void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that gold bars/ pieces cannot be proved to be smuggled merely relying on the retracted statements without any other corroborative evidence. Accordingly, confiscation unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition sustained as onus to prove genuineness of the transaction is not proved by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that to burden assessee with capital gain arising out of transfer of immovable property or an interest in it, the cost of acquisition is necessarily to be established. Here, cost of acquisition of so called right of preemption is considered as NIL. Hence, computation provisions fail, therefore capital gains could not have been calculated.
Supreme Court held that User Development Fee (UDF) is in the form of ‘tax or cess’ collected for financing the cost of future projects and is not a consideration for services provided by the assessee to the customer, visitors, passengers, vendors etc.
ITAT Chennai held that trade payable appearing in the books of accounts duly explained. Accordingly, addition towards the same u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified and liable to be deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of lenders of unsecured loans.
