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 : Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties ...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that security deposit which is nothing more than sale consideration hence the same used as a devise to postp...
Income Tax : The Court held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when exempt income is not earned in the relevant year. It upheld...
Income Tax : Madras High Court held that development charges paid to SIPCOT not being capital asset doesn’t qualify for the claim of deprecia...
Income Tax : The Jammu and Kashmir High Court set aside ITAT and CIT(A) orders denying J&K Bank refund interest over disputed TDS certificates,...
DGFT : All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the ...
Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties under Section 37(1) and not deductible.
Delhi High Court held that security deposit which is nothing more than sale consideration hence the same used as a devise to postpone tax liability towards an uncertain date. Accordingly, the said question is answered in favour of revenue.
The Court held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when exempt income is not earned in the relevant year. It upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
Madras High Court held that development charges paid to SIPCOT not being capital asset doesn’t qualify for the claim of depreciation. However, the same qualifies as revenue expense and assessee entitled to claim deduction @5% as SIPCOT would deduct 5% every year.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court set aside ITAT and CIT(A) orders denying J&K Bank refund interest over disputed TDS certificates, terming the finding perverse and remanding the case.
Delhi High Court held that addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted since the said amount is already disclosed before Income Tax Settlement Commission. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 153C assessment, ruling that the ITAT had already addressed the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court judgment. Since the ITAT order contained a finding on the judgment’s applicability, the assessee’s only recourse was a statutory appeal under Section 260A.
Karnataka High Court held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued and served without signature of the Assessing Officer is a foundational defect and the same cannot be ignored. Accordingly, assessment order passed thereon is invalid.
Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, ruling that an existing and operational registration under Section 12AA makes grant of Section 80G approval mandatory. The court held that once 12AA status is granted, further inquiry into application for 80G is unnecessary, citing Supreme Court precedent.
Supreme Court ruled that High Court erred by dismissing Revenue’s appeal based only on old precedent without examining current facts. Judgment emphasizes that new AUDA tests must be applied to specific factual situation of Development Authority.
