Section 12 of Income Tax Act, 1961
Income Tax : Courts held that prior exemption claims under Sections 11 and 12 cannot justify denial of 80G approval. The key takeaway is that b...
Income Tax : Understand the taxability, registration, and exemption provisions for charitable and religious trusts under Sections 11–13, incl...
Income Tax : A summary of the tax framework governing charitable entities in India, covering the definition of 'charitable purpose,' mandatory ...
Income Tax : Does the Finance Act, 2025, extend 12AB registration from 5 to 10 years for trusts under Rs. 5 Cr? See if sma...
Goods and Services Tax : An analysis of GST treatment on post-supply price revisions for exports with IGST payments. Learn about debit and credit notes, in...
Income Tax : The Tribunal condoned a 60-day delay after accepting explanations relating to migration of the ITAT portal and the death of a fami...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that grants disbursed by a statutory corporation formed part of its core business functions and qualified a...
Income Tax : PCIT had erroneously mixed up the scope of renewal proceedings with cancellation proceedings under Section 12AB(4). Further, Settl...
Custom Duty : For export transactions occurring before the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, the determination of iron ore fines (Fe content) must be...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for al...
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment order quashed since notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served after the date of limitation. Since issuance of notice is bad in law, consequent orders is liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India invoked due to non-implementation of approved resolution plan even after five years of the approval. Accordingly, it is directed that the corporate debtor be taken in liquidation.
ITAT Delhi upholds CIT(E) order in ITO Vs Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, disallowing unrelated expenses and clarifying deductions under Section 80G.
The application filed on 11th October, 2012 was not pressed and subsequently on 3rd July, 2013 another application was filed by the Respondents claiming compensation amount of USD 745580, maximum penalty of 50% and maximum interest of 12%.
NCLAT Delhi held that section 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) empowers the CoC to decide to liquidate the Corporate Debtor any time before the confirmation of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority.
Further, in reference application filed under the Settlement Act, the Dy CST passed an order of settlement u/s 13(1) and arrived at the same figure of the settlement amount which were calculated by the assessee in its application.
Assessee was engaged in the business of purchasing and renting properties, as also the entire income of the assessee was based on the income received from leasing its properties.
Bombay High Court quashed the assessment order on account of breaching statutory provisions of section 23(4) of the MVAT; violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, non-application of mind, and legal malafides.
The securities were treated as stock-in-trade in the hands of assessee. The amount received by assessee on the sale of the securities was considered for computing its business income.
Allahabad High Court held that if excess stock is found at the time of survey, then proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act should be pressed in service and not proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act
