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 : Thus, a substantial portion of the cause of action has accrued at Kolkata. Applying the principle of forum convenience, it would b...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the assessee was required to pay 5% of the receipt o...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court confirms private trust assessable as Association of Persons, upholding disallowance of interest paid to benefici...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court dismisses revenue appeal against Bharti Airtel, reaffirming that charges paid for bandwidth to overseas operators...
Income Tax : Assessee was predominantly engaged in activities of imparting education and also involving the certain educational institutions. A...
DGFT : All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the ...
Held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit. Particularly in view of the excruciating fact that reduction of subsidy from written down value was accepted by the Assessing Officer and he did not tinker with the amount of depreciation claimed.
Delhi High Court held that reference by AO to JCIT regarding non-deduction of TDS was first step for initiation of action for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, penalty order passed by JCIT levying penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation.
Delhi High Court held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of any effective inquiry and total non-application of mind by AO. Accordingly, order passed by AO erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Held that the TPO had provided no reasons whatsoever for rejecting the TNMM as the most appropriate method. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the TPO’s decision to reject TNMM as the most appropriate method was without reasons.
Aggrieved by the relief granted by CIT(A) to assessee, Revenue preferred Appeal before ITAT for the assessment years under consideration and against the deletion of additions made by AO. ITAT dismissed the appeal.
Delhi High Court remands ITAT case for reconsideration on S. 153C, clarifying its applicability to searches conducted before the Finance Act 2015 amendment.
The power to reassess can be invoked only on the basis of material that may be pertinent to a particular AY, that principle would pale into insignificance where the assessee fails to assert a change or a fundamental alteration of the facts which are asserted to have remained unaltered.
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.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that Tribunal rightly set aside penalty under section 271(1)(c) as AO not clear whether it was case of concealment of particulars of income or failure to furnish correct particulars of income.
The Assessing Authority disallowed a sum of Rs.11,27,00,000/-, which the assessee claimed it as business loss. The Assessing Authority had also disallowed certain other claims of the assessee.
