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 : Madras High Court held that time-share membership fees could not be fully taxed in the year of receipt since the assessee had cont...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and ...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Secti...
Income Tax : The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounte...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gain...
DGFT : All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the ...
ITAT Bangalore held that assets received for testing purpose and there is no specific benefit that arises to the assessee with respect to usage of those assets, the same is not taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the lender’s identity and creditworthiness via banking channels and subsequent repayment with interest. It was held that doubts regarding the lender’s own creditors are irrelevant for the assessee’s assessment prior to the 2022 amendment, provided the primary transaction is genuine.
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.
