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 ruled that omission to issue Section 143(2) vitiates reassessment at the root. Such a defect cannot be cured, even if the return is alleged to be defective.
The issue was whether the appellate authority relied on fresh evidence without following Rule 46A. The High Court upheld deletion of the addition, holding that all documents were already on record before the Assessing Officer.
The High Court upheld deletion of addition where the Assessing Officer relied on undisclosed information. The ruling reinforces that additions cannot be sustained without confronting the assessee with material evidence.
The case addressed the correct head of income for interest earned on staff loans. The court affirmed the Tribunal’s finding that such income arises in the normal course of business and found no ground to interfere.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions where share sale transactions were supported by contract notes, demat records, and bank statements, and no contrary evidence was found.
The Tribunal held that running coaching classes for substantial fees does not qualify as charitable education. In the absence of evidence of free or subsidized services, exemption under section 11 was rightly denied.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty proceedings are consequential to assessment. When the assessment issue is pending before the High Court, penalty cannot be enforced.
The Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Delhi High Court upheld exclusion of multiple comparables after finding them functionally different from a low-risk investment advisory service provider. It held that such findings were factual and did not raise any substantial question of law.
