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 High Court quashed tax additions where the assessee was denied cross-examination of a key witness whose statements were relied upon. The ruling reiterates that such denial violates principles of natural justice.
Gujarat High Court held that disallowance of claim made in return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied in such case. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed and questions of law answered in favour of assessee.
The High Court held that the tax department cannot deny set-off of short-term capital loss when the same claim was accepted in factually identical connected cases. Consistency in tax treatment was upheld.
The High Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the law on presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C by wrongly shifting the burden to the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its limited powers under Section 254(2) by recalling a final order on merits. Once the recall was struck down, the original favourable order stood automatically restored.
Kerala High Court held that Bank is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to senior citizen who has provided Form 15H. Accordingly, Bank cannot be considered as assessee in default for non-deduction of such TDS.
The Delhi High Court rejected the Revenue’s transfer pricing appeals, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The ruling followed earlier decisions on identical issues for prior years.
The Court rejected the argument that goodwill payments amounted to prohibited fee sharing and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.
Madras High Court held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot review its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Notably jurisdiction of Tribunal is restricted only to rectify error and not review.
The High Court held that additions for excess cash and stock cannot rest only on a survey statement. It ruled that statements under Section 133A lack conclusive evidentiary value without corroborative material.
