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 ...
Madras High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal, ruling that a delay in filing Form 56F cannot deny Income Tax deduction under Section 10AA if the claim was made in the original return.
Delhi High Court held that the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Income Tax Act cannot be available here as reference made for information under Indo-Swiss DTAA was invalid. Accordingly, questions to law as framed are answered against the Revenue.
Chhattisgarh High Court voids Section 263 revision order against Shilphy Steels, ruling it invalid due to lack of reasonable hearing opportunity for the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that the seat of Tribunal and/or jurisdiction of concerned Hon’ble High Court would depend upon where seat of the Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order. Thus, ITAT Delhi Bench do not have territorial jurisdiction as assessment order are based by AO in Lucknow.
Assessee – real estate developer was engaged in the business of construction of residential units / bungalows which were duplexes surrounded by a compound wall. Each residential unit consisted of a portico and an open terrace.
Calcutta High Court upholds income estimated at 0.77% for GNG Exports after books rejection, even with initial grounds for rejection found untenable.
ITAT Kolkata held that compensation received for failure of performance guarantee parameter of capital assets [Wind Turbine Generators] is in nature of capital receipt and hence outside the purview of taxation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that that Section 68 of the Act as was in force prior to 01.04.2023, did not require the assessee to explain the source of the source of funds in case of unsecured loans. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted and appeal allowed.
The Supreme Court clarifies that the six-year tax assessment period for third parties, whose documents are seized, starts from the date their AO receives materials, not the original search date.
Calcutta High Court dismisses Income Tax Department’s appeal regarding unexplained cash credit from share capital, citing a previous binding decision.
