Income Tax : Supreme Court disallows ₹10 crore bad debt deduction for Khyati Realtors Pvt Ltd, ruling it as capital expenditure, not eligible...
Income Tax : Explore remedies for taxpayers under the Income Tax Act, 1961, comparing appeals & revisions. Understand procedures, limitations &...
Income Tax : On commencement of regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) of Act , there is no need for intimation u/s 143(1)(a)(i) Where the s...
Income Tax : Substantial question of Law (SQL). On interpretation of section 260A of the Income Tax Act , 1961 and section 100 of the code of c...
Income Tax : A remedy by way of appeal from the orders of ITAT is provided both u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and u/s.15 (w.e.f. 6-1- 20...
Income Tax : Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthines...
Income Tax : The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Coopertief U.A (Ne...
Income Tax : Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the revenue in manipulation of share price of SRK Industries recording fictitious Long Term Ca...
Income Tax : Tribunal was justified in declining capital gain exemption under Section 54F with respect to a property described as “makaan�...
Income Tax : AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required...
DGFT : All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the ...
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Coopertief U.A (Netherlands). The return of the petitioner was picked up for scrutiny.
Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the revenue in manipulation of share price of SRK Industries recording fictitious Long Term Capital Gain and claiming exemption under section 10(38) by following case of Swati Bajaj.
Tribunal was justified in declining capital gain exemption under Section 54F with respect to a property described as “makaan” (house) in the registered sale deed but in reality having a brick kiln construction.
AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required to be filed in the Income-tax Return for the assessment year.
ITAT order was based on the fact that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
Delhi High Court held that in case of investment in two residential properties, exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is available in respect of only one of the two residential properties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that assessee is entitled to confine the settlement of disputes which were subject matter of its appeal filed before appellate authority under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act].
Held that the deposits made by the assessee were in the nature of fixed deposit investments. Therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee when the bank went to liquidation is only a capital loss.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
