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 ...
Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, ruling that an existing and operational registration under Section 12AA makes grant of Section 80G approval mandatory. The court held that once 12AA status is granted, further inquiry into application for 80G is unnecessary, citing Supreme Court precedent.
Supreme Court ruled that High Court erred by dismissing Revenue’s appeal based only on old precedent without examining current facts. Judgment emphasizes that new AUDA tests must be applied to specific factual situation of Development Authority.
Delhi HC ruled that date of electronic upload of DRP directions on ITBA is date of receipt under Section 144C(13). AO’s final order passed a day late was held invalid, reaffirming that physical delivery is irrelevant once uploaded.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that a prior approval for search assessments under Section 153D must involve the superior authority’s conscious application of mind. The Court held that approvals granted mechanically or through a single omnibus letter for numerous assessments are invalid, thereby quashing the assessment.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that assessee is barred from raising objection regarding jurisdiction after one month of service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ITAT absolutely justified in not entertaining jurisdictional question.
Bombay High Court quashes ITAT order that rectified its decision based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling (Checkmate Services), affirming Sec 254(2) limits to mistakes apparent from record.
Where the property was not actually let out, and was treated as self-occupied property, in case of vacant property, the annual value under section 23(1)(a) must be determined on the basis of the Municipal Rateable Value and not market rent.
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.1.89 Cr, which the AO treated as a donation to other trusts and deemed income under S 11(3). The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that payments made to other NGOs for executing charitable projects under the Trust’s supervision and control constitute genuine application of income, not donation.
Delhi High Court held that separate transfer pricing adjustment for AMP was uncalled for given that the distribution business of assessee was already benchmarked separately and the transaction was benchmarked correctly.
The Bombay High Court confirmed a 15% addition on alleged bogus purchases, rejecting the Revenue’s plea for full disallowance. The Court held that reliance solely on Sales Tax Department data, without giving the assessee cross-examination rights, violates natural justice. With concurrent factual findings by lower authorities, no substantial question of law was found to arise.
