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 ...
The Court held that once a revised return is filed, the original return stands obliterated. Ignoring the revised return was treated as a legal error, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The judgment reiterates that additions under Section 68 cannot be based on presumptions or suspicion without supporting evidence. It held that the Assessing Officer must bring material on record before rejecting explanations.
The court held that revision under section 263 requires independent satisfaction by the PCIT. Acting merely on the Assessing Officer’s view renders the revision order invalid.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT order deleting LTCG additions. It ruled that factual findings based on evidence cannot be disturbed without legal error.
CIT Vs Patel Engg. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The appeals before the Bombay High Court arose from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Years 2000–01 and 2001–02. The central issue was whether the assessee qualified as a […]
High Court held that consideration received for assignment of self-generated trademarks prior to 2002 amendment could not be taxed as capital gains because no cost of acquisition could be determined.
The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The court held that an appeal under Section 260A cannot be entertained when it merely seeks re-appreciation of evidence, upholding the addition confirmed by lower authorities.
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
The High Court ruled that sales tax exemption retained by an industrial unit was capital in nature because it was granted to encourage investment in backward areas. As a result, the subsidy could not be treated as taxable revenue.
