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 ...
The case addressed whether additions can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. The Court held that such additions are impermissible in completed assessments, reinforcing settled legal principles.
The issue involved classification of land for capital gains taxation. The Court held that revenue records and evidence of agricultural activity prevail, making the land exempt from capital gains tax.
The ruling confirms that additions cannot be made merely on suspicion without supporting material. The Court found that the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence to disprove the assessee’s transactions.
The case examined whether revision under Section 263 was validly invoked. The High Court held that reliance on the Assessing Officer’s reference without independent application of mind invalidated the revision.
The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that excluding such elements artificially reduces eligible deduction.
The High Court held that once the assessee failed to explain the source, addition was justified only to the extent of cash actually seized. It ruled that the AO cannot arbitrarily add a higher amount than the proven seized sum.
The court examined whether interest on share capital parked temporarily could be taxed. It held that where funds are directly linked to project setup, the interest is a capital receipt and not taxable as other income.
Karnataka High Court flags catch-22 in TDS prosecution of ex-MD post-liquidation; directs Official Liquidator to act on representation, grants interim protection, remedy lies under Sec 260A.
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.
