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 ...
Upholding the sanctity of concluded proceedings, the Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge, holding that the Checkmate Services judgment on PF/ESI contributions cannot retroactively invalidate a prior ITAT order. The key takeaway is that the ITAT’s power under Section 254(2) is limited, and a later change in law is not a ground to disturb a settled matter.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, affirming that the ITAT correctly refused to rectify its concluded order using the later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services. The ruling emphasizes that Section 254(2) is only for mistakes apparent from the record, and a subsequent change in law cannot reopen a finalized judicial adjudication.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer of an undertaking under a court-approved scheme cannot be characterised as a slum sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) hence provisions of section 50B not attracted.
Delhi High Court rules in PCIT v. Amadeus India that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is warranted for AMP expenses, citing no ‘international transaction.’ The Court reiterates the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective from AY 2022-23, not retrospective, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that share of profit from taxable AOPs cannot be taxed again in the member’s hands, upholding ITAT’s order in Principal Commissioner vs. Ramesh Chandra Rai.
The Karnataka High Court rejected a Revenue appeal concerning the taxability of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-USA DTAA due to the tax effect being below the ₹2 Crore threshold set by the CBDT’s latest circular.
Bombay High Court confirms that an assessment order isn’t ‘erroneous’ if AO applied his mind. Court dismissed PCIT’s appeal against Gehna Jewellers.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of declaration in Form No. 1 under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 since manual appeal is filed by NRI petitioner is not justifiable. Accordingly, communication rejecting declaration in From N0. 1 quashed and set aside.
This Income Tax appeal addressed whether a 5% infrastructure fee should be deducted based on gross bills or actual cash receipts. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower authorities decision, emphasizing that the expenditures deduction must strictly follow the contractual clause, which explicitly linked the 5% payment to total receipts, thereby restricting the allowable deduction.
