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 Court held that where corresponding sales are accepted, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 10% and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The issue was whether compensation paid to flat buyers was capital or revenue expenditure. The Court held it to be revenue expenditure as it was incurred for business purposes and commercial expediency.
The case addressed whether additions can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. The Court held that such additions are impermissible in completed assessments, reinforcing settled legal principles.
The issue involved classification of land for capital gains taxation. The Court held that revenue records and evidence of agricultural activity prevail, making the land exempt from capital gains tax.
The ruling confirms that additions cannot be made merely on suspicion without supporting material. The Court found that the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence to disprove the assessee’s transactions.
The case examined whether revision under Section 263 was validly invoked. The High Court held that reliance on the Assessing Officer’s reference without independent application of mind invalidated the revision.
The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that excluding such elements artificially reduces eligible deduction.
The High Court held that once the assessee failed to explain the source, addition was justified only to the extent of cash actually seized. It ruled that the AO cannot arbitrarily add a higher amount than the proven seized sum.
The court examined whether interest on share capital parked temporarily could be taxed. It held that where funds are directly linked to project setup, the interest is a capital receipt and not taxable as other income.
Karnataka High Court flags catch-22 in TDS prosecution of ex-MD post-liquidation; directs Official Liquidator to act on representation, grants interim protection, remedy lies under Sec 260A.
