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 ...
Delhi High Court held that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work-in-Progress.
In the matter abovementioned Hon’ble Madras HC denied to grant any relief to the petitioner by holding that ITAT is the ultimate fact finding body and findings of facts of the Tribunal cannot be interfered under Section 260A of IT Act.
Court emphasized that issuing a notice to a non-existent entity constitutes a jurisdictional defect, which Section 292B cannot cure.
The assessee had adopted Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and Operating Profit/ Operating Cost [OP/OC] as the Profit Level Indicator for benchmarking the international transactions.
Held that in our view, two authorities have examined the facts and have given a finding of fact that the same Cenvat Credit was wrongly availed and passed on to the customer, and this has not been rebutted.
In a recent ruling Delhi HC remanded the proceedings to the AO to consider the Assessee’s alternate claim for loss arising out of the HTM securities, as loss under the head ‘income from business and profession.
Delhi High Court held that recourse to Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules for computing disallowance u/s. 14A not allowable since assessee’s computation of expense attributable to earning exempt income not found inadequate.
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Coopertief U.A (Netherlands). The return of the petitioner was picked up for scrutiny.
Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the revenue in manipulation of share price of SRK Industries recording fictitious Long Term Capital Gain and claiming exemption under section 10(38) by following case of Swati Bajaj.
