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 High Court upheld deletion of ₹7.26 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that PAN, bank statements and audited financials established identity and creditworthiness. Suspicion without evidence was held insufficient.
Delhi High Court held reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated merely on an internal audit objection. Absence of new tangible material made reopening invalid.
High Court held that compensation received for termination of trademark rights in AY 1997-98 was a capital receipt. Since Section 28(va) was inserted prospectively from 01.04.2003, it could not apply to relevant year.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s plea and affirmed that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines.
The High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines. ITAT’s demand of TCS, interest, and penalty was set aside.
The High Court held that delayed filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and does not justify denial of charitable exemption. Trusts otherwise compliant with audit requirements remain eligible for Section 11 benefits.
The Court held that Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB does not expressly permit addition of Section 14A disallowance, leading to dismissal of the Revenue s appeal.
The High Court held that quick repayment alone cannot establish a paper transaction when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through records.
The issue was whether ITAT could reject appeals after an administrative transfer. The High Court ruled such dismissals are invalid and appeals must be heard on merits.
Addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely due to high share premium when investors are identifiable, traceable, and supported by audited financial records.
