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 ...
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.
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.
