Income Tax : The issue is when High Courts can entertain appeals against ITAT orders. The key takeaway is that only debatable, material legal q...
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 : Calcutta HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal after the remand report confirmed the disputed receipt was sale proceeds of investments...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court ruled that expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A unless exempt income is actually earned in the rele...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that non-compliance with Section 144B raised a jurisdictional issue requiring ITAT adjudication and set asi...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...
Income Tax : The High Court declined to examine bogus purchase issues after holding the Revenue's appeal not maintainable due to low tax effect...
DGFT : All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the ...
The court held that late filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and does not automatically bar charitable exemption. Substantial compliance before appellate proceedings was found sufficient.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrued as income. The Court held that retention money is contingent on contract completion and not taxable until the right to receive crystallises.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions based solely on unsigned loose sheets seized during search. In absence of independent corroborative evidence, such documents were held to have no evidentiary value.
The Tribunal ruled that Sections 144C and 153 must be read harmoniously and that DRP proceedings do not extend statutory limitation. Any final order issued beyond the prescribed time is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
The issue was whether interest on enhanced compensation could be spread over earlier years. The Court held it taxable as income from other sources in the year of receipt, subject to statutory deduction.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening beyond six years is invalid without a recorded satisfaction of undisclosed assets exceeding ₹50 lakh. The takeaway is strict compliance with the fourth proviso to section 153A is mandatory.
The tribunal held that suspicion, abnormal price rise, or third-party reports are insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. Revenue must establish direct involvement of the taxpayer in price rigging.
This ruling clarifies that repayment of loan with interest, coupled with documentary proof, negates allegations of unexplained cash credit. Mere suspicion without defects in evidence cannot sustain an addition.
The court held that additions for excess stock and cash cannot be sustained when based solely on a survey statement under Section 133A, reaffirming that such statements lack conclusive evidentiary value.
The court held that exporters cannot be denied Section 80HHC benefits merely for lack of a consolidated BRC. Consignment-wise bank certificates are sufficient if available on record.
