Income Tax : The New Tax Regime restricts Section 24(b) benefits, disallowing set-off of home loan interest against salary income. Taxpayers mu...
Income Tax : Summary of key tax rules for rental and house property income under the Income Tax Act, including sub-letting, deemed ownership, c...
Income Tax : Understand Benami property and transactions as per the PBPT Act. Learn what constitutes Benami, who the Benamidar and Beneficial O...
Income Tax : Tax deductions for interest paid on loans play a significant role in personal tax planning, offering relief by reducing taxable in...
Income Tax : Learn how to optimize home loan interest tax benefits for self-occupied and rented properties. Strategies include reducing capital...
Income Tax : While presenting interim Budget 2019-20 FM proposed to exempt the levy of income tax on notional rent on a second self-occupied ho...
Income Tax : Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed mi...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a land sale completed before 01.07.2012 could not be subjected to a DVO reference under the amended Section...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that income from house property can be assessed only in the hands of an owner or deemed owner under the Income-ta...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that grants disbursed by a statutory corporation formed part of its core business functions and qualified a...
Fema / RBI : 2. With a view to disseminating information on the SLR status of a Government security, it has been decided that: (i) the SLR stat...
Delhi High Court held that bail in serious money laundering case involving defalcation of public money not granted as ED’s case is founded not on mere suspicion but on extensive documentary evidence, forensic audits, and statements recorded u/s. 50 of the PMLA.
Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application since the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled. Also, there is sufficient material collected by ED to show that the applicant is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
There exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering and further, the appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA.
Delhi High Court upheld the attachment order under PMLA in view of appellant’s criminal and appellant’s failure to discharge the burden of proving the facts in support of his claim that the attached properties are untainted and not obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity.
Orissa High Court held that money recovered from the petitioner constitutes ‘proceeds of crime’ unless the same is disproved at trial. Accordingly, proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] upheld.
Orissa High Court held that writ petition filed beyond the condonable period envisaged under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] the same is not condoned. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application stands dismissed since the material collected shows that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of an offence under Prevention of Money Laundering matter. Accordingly, bail application rejected.
Karnataka High Court granted bail for offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PML Act] taking into consideration the maximum punishment for the alleged offences and that there is no possibility of trial commencing in the near future.
Patna High Court held that passing of reassessment order under Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 beyond the time limit stipulated under section 26(3) of the Act is barred by limitation and accordingly, order is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified since PCIT correctly observed that the very basis of disallowance of depreciation was on an incorrect understanding of the facts by AO. Accordingly, revision order upheld.
