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 ...
Tribunal was justified in declining capital gain exemption under Section 54F with respect to a property described as “makaan” (house) in the registered sale deed but in reality having a brick kiln construction.
AO observed that Wealth Tax Act was already abolished from financial year 2015-16, and the details of the assets were now required to be filed in the Income-tax Return for the assessment year.
ITAT order was based on the fact that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
Delhi High Court held that in case of investment in two residential properties, exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is available in respect of only one of the two residential properties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that assessee is entitled to confine the settlement of disputes which were subject matter of its appeal filed before appellate authority under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act].
Held that the deposits made by the assessee were in the nature of fixed deposit investments. Therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee when the bank went to liquidation is only a capital loss.
Addition of Rs.10 Crore under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as Revenue failed to specify whether the addition was being made alleging concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Delhi High Court held that Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method when reseller imports goods from its Associated Enterprise (AE) and the goods are sold in the same condition without any value addition.
Allahabad High Court held that no substantial question of law arise since Tribunal after thorough scrutiny concluded that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 by PCIT was without any base. Thus, appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited (Corporate Debtor) is a company engaged in business of power generation. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 03.10.2019.
