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 Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal’s estimation of 6% on disputed purchases, holding that concurrent findings of fact warranted no interference. It dismissed the appeals for absence of any substantial question of law.
The Gujarat High Court held that the Assessing Officer relied only on information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department without conducting independent verification. It upheld the restriction of the addition to 5% and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee’s explanation.
ITAT held that subsidy recognised as income could be claimed as bad debt when it became unrecoverable, even if written off in the same year.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals as infructuous after the Tribunal disposed of the main appeals, leaving the legal questions open.
The High Court held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without recording reasons in writing and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, contrary to Rule 46A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after following the prescribed procedure.
The Karnataka High Court allowed withdrawal of the writ petition and granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act.
The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition after finding that the Assessing Officer had not verified the assessees claim. It ruled that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenues appeal after holding that the CIT(A) and ITAT had thoroughly examined the lenders’ creditworthiness. It found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
The High Court held that no addition under Section 68 could be sustained as the Revenue failed to produce material connecting the assessee with the cash deposited in another company’s bank account.
