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 ...
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.
It is settled law that the AO cannot supplant its view as to the commercial expediency of transactions in place of that of the Assessee. In the present case, the AO’s decision to disallow the loss is based on surmises and assumptions.
Delhi High Court held that there was no evidence of cessation of liability thus addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
