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 ...
The Calcutta High Court condoned a 430-day delay after holding that the death of the assessee’s authorized representative constituted sufficient cause in the faceless tax regime. The Court set aside the ITAT’s dismissal order and restored the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
The court held that only the income component of alleged bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire transaction. It upheld the Tribunal’s restriction of addition to 6%. The ruling reinforces limits on full disallowance.
The tribunal held that interest cannot be disallowed where advances to related parties are made for business purposes and out of own funds, emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency.
The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
The case involved multiple additions challenged by the revenue after relief was granted to the assessee. The Court held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the claims in remand, no substantial question of law survives.
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The case examined whether a lower TDS certificate applies prospectively or for the full year. The Court held it applies to the entire assessment year, negating default and interest liability.
The issue concerned overlap of deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80HHC. The Court held that 80HHC profits cannot be reduced by 80-IA deduction, ensuring independent computation.
The issue was whether addition based on assumed production yield is valid. The Court held that without supporting evidence, such additions are unsustainable and cannot justify rejection of books.
