A detailed analysis of the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of PCIT Vs Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. regarding the legitimacy of claiming depreciation on revalued assets.
Explore our in-depth analysis of the recent ITAT Bangalore ruling on Veereshayya Angadi Vs ITO case, focusing on the issue of penalty for excessive refund claims influenced by a tax consultant.
The recent ruling by CESTAT on Chandigarh Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise has declared that the collection of Adda fee by transport corporations as part of statutory functions does not amount to “Business Auxiliary Service” (BAS).
The recent ITAT Delhi decision in the case of Karamveer Singh Vs ITO emphasises the non-taxability of immovable property bought through funds gifted by relatives. Explore the case’s specifics, implications, and outcomes here.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court denies anticipatory bail to Mohit Jain, the proprietor implicated in a large-scale GST fraud scandal involving the formation of 25 bogus firms. The court notes the severity of the economic offense and its grave implications on the national economy.
CESTAT Hyderabad in case of Regency Ceramics Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Puducherry examines applicability of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and benefit of remission for goods lost due to fire or arson.
ITAT Visakhapatnam in case of Vishnu Srinivasa Rao Kakarla Vs ITO clarifies that AO cannot travel beyond his jurisdiction to verify cash withdrawals when limited scrutiny was for verifying cash deposits.
The recent ITAT Delhi ruling in the Shantiniketan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case allows high-interest payments under commercial expedience, refuting disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The Ahmedabad ITAT overturned a decision by the CIT(A), ruling in favour of Ketan M. Chalishazar HUF on an error made by his broker during a share transaction. The tribunal highlights the importance of accurate code modifications.
In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
