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 ...
Karnataka High Court allows Ingersoll-Rand’s tax appeals, clarifying rules on club fees, ad-hoc disallowances, and 80HHC deduction for service income.
Gauhati High Court held that in view of provisions of section 292B and 292BB of the Income Tax Act the right of assessee has been restricted to challenge the validity of notice issued by Income Tax Officer (ITO) or assessment order passed by DCIT.
Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied is bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court rejects Revenue appeal against Punjab & Sind Bank on securities, pension, 14A issues, citing coverage by earlier court judgments.
Thus, a substantial portion of the cause of action has accrued at Kolkata. Applying the principle of forum convenience, it would be appropriate if the petitioner was relegated to availing of the remedies at Kolkata.
Bombay High Court held that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the assessee was required to pay 5% of the receipt of the assessee and not on 5% of the gross advertising bills. Accordingly, infrastructure fee deduction restricted to 5% of receipt.
Bombay High Court confirms private trust assessable as Association of Persons, upholding disallowance of interest paid to beneficiaries under Section 40(ba).
Delhi High Court dismisses revenue appeal against Bharti Airtel, reaffirming that charges paid for bandwidth to overseas operators are not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act.
Assessee was predominantly engaged in activities of imparting education and also involving the certain educational institutions. Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on disclosing nil income.
Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
