Explains the legal distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Highlights tax exemption rules and conditions for agricultural income.
Tribunal held that a commercial tannery cannot be treated as a residential house merely because rent is taxed under “House Property.” Section 54F exemption cannot be denied on such technical classification.
Explains how residential status determines tax liability under the Income Tax Act, 2025. Clarifies who is taxed on global income and who is taxed only on domestic income.
The Tribunal held that export values were reduced to account for overseas commission payments, violating Section 7 of FEMA. However, penalties were substantially reduced considering the facts and partial relief was granted.
The High Court quashed an adjudication order as the notice was served only electronically after GST registration cancellation. Physical service under Section 169 was held mandatory.
Introduction The story of cryptocurrency in India has been a roller-coaster ride, to say the least. From the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) ‘shadow ban’ in 2018 to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020), the journey has been one of ups and downs for the cryptocurrency […]
This article explains how residential status under the Income-tax Act, 1961 determines whether India can tax your global income or only India-sourced income. It highlights statutory tests, classifications, and judicial principles governing tax jurisdiction.
The draft amendments mandate structured recovery policies and strict conduct standards for SFBs. Harsh practices and improper recovery methods are expressly prohibited.
The Court held that losses already set off in earlier years cannot be notionally carried forward for computing deduction under Section 80IA. The ruling follows binding precedent restricting retrospective reworking of absorbed losses.
The Tribunal held that service tax paid under a partner’s registration can be adjusted against the firm’s liability. However, liability as a sub-contractor was upheld.
