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 issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
The High Court held that an addition for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement. The key takeaway is that Section 69 requires concrete evidence of actual payment, not assumptions drawn from incomplete documents.
Telangana High Court held that the income derived from tissue culture operations by the assessee qualifies as agricultural income and hence exempted from tax under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the present writ stands allowed.
The issue is when High Courts can entertain appeals against ITAT orders. The key takeaway is that only debatable, material legal questions—not factual disputes—permit appellate scrutiny.
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
The dispute involved whether the Varanasi Bench could adjudicate an appeal arising from a Kolkata-based assessment. The Tribunal held that filing before an incorrect Bench is fatal and parties must approach the jurisdictional Tribunal.
The ruling highlights that immunity under DTDRS is general to penalty proceedings. Consequently, revising penalties merely because a different section might apply is impermissible.
The High Court held that Fringe Benefit Tax and Section 14A disallowance cannot be added while computing MAT under Section 115JB. The ruling confirms that only adjustments expressly permitted by law can alter book profits.
Patna High Court held that ITAT was not justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) without demonstrating any perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard by the appellate authority. Accordingly, deletion of addition u/s. 68 by CIT(A) justified and writ allowed.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
