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 ...
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.
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.
