Dhara Verma Abstract The labour welfare laws in India provide essential maternity and paternity benefits to workers which demonstrate the country’s commitment to achieving gender equity and supporting families while fostering social and economic development. The maternity protection system in India has experienced legislative and judicial improvements but its paternity benefits system remains underdeveloped because […]
This guide explains the mandatory conditions, documentation, and procedural steps for converting a partnership into a company. It highlights compliance requirements and the structured legal process under the Companies Act.
ITAT held that once an assessee adopts a prescribed valuation method under Rule 11UA, the AO cannot change or substitute it. The ruling reinforces taxpayer autonomy in selecting valuation approaches.
The Court ruled that interest cannot be imposed in adjudication if it was not specified in the show cause notice. The decision reinforces that authorities cannot exceed the scope of the original notice under GST law.
Rebate under Section 87A includes STCG for eligibility but cannot be applied to such income. This creates a limitation in tax benefit for taxpayers earning capital gains.
Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authority as prior approval must mandatorily be obtained from the authorities specified under Section 151(ii) and approval by the Principal Commissioner was not valid in such cases.
The issue revolved around expansion of scrutiny from cash deposits to entire bank credits. The Tribunal ruled that such expansion without mandatory approval renders the assessment void and unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that bank deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income when linked to regular business activity. It upheld that consistent past records supported the assessee’s claim of business receipts.
The issue was whether protective addition can survive when income is already taxed elsewhere. ITAT held that once income attains finality in another assessee’s case, protective addition cannot be sustained.
The issue was whether deduction under Section 80P is allowed when return is filed late. ITAT held that post-2018 amendment, deduction is barred if return is not filed within the due date under Section 139(1).
