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 High Court held that since AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2022-23 assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C in respect of AY 2012-13 is invalid. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Act empowers AO to impose or enhance or reduce or cancel penalty pursuant to the quantum appeal before higher appellate authority or court by giving effect to the quantum order.
ITAT upholds AO’s 20.97% gross profit estimation for Sarandhar Gupta due to unverifiable cash expenses in road contracting business.
The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue. The controversy involved in the present appeals pertains to the treatment of “commission income” and the amounts received by the Assessee as “subscription fee”.
Bombay High Court held that amalgamated company not having obtained approval of Central Government is entitled to adjust the Written Down Value [WDV] of the assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation on such adjusted written down value.
Delhi High Court held that reasonable payment for services rendered to persons specified u/s. 13(3) of the Income Tax Act by the trust is justifiable and such payment wouldn’t fall within the exception of section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat HC dismisses Revenue’s appeal, upholding ITAT’s decision to delete additions on F&O profit, capital increase, & investment due to AO’s errors.
Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil income after setting off carried-forward losses and reported book profits of Rs. 26.90 crore under the MAT provisions of Section 115JB.
Allahabad HC upheld ITAT’s decision in PCIT vs Sapna Gupta, ruling the Section 153D approval was mechanical, invalidating the assessment proceedings.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment by AO by merely acting under dictation or on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind to materials on record is not justifiable in law. Hence, appeal of revenue liable to be dismissed.
