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 Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Delhi High Court upheld exclusion of multiple comparables after finding them functionally different from a low-risk investment advisory service provider. It held that such findings were factual and did not raise any substantial question of law.
The issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
The High Court held that an addition for unexplained investment cannot rest solely on an unsigned and unexecuted agreement. The key takeaway is that Section 69 requires concrete evidence of actual payment, not assumptions drawn from incomplete documents.
Telangana High Court held that the income derived from tissue culture operations by the assessee qualifies as agricultural income and hence exempted from tax under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the present writ stands allowed.
The issue is when High Courts can entertain appeals against ITAT orders. The key takeaway is that only debatable, material legal questions—not factual disputes—permit appellate scrutiny.
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
The dispute involved whether the Varanasi Bench could adjudicate an appeal arising from a Kolkata-based assessment. The Tribunal held that filing before an incorrect Bench is fatal and parties must approach the jurisdictional Tribunal.
The ruling highlights that immunity under DTDRS is general to penalty proceedings. Consequently, revising penalties merely because a different section might apply is impermissible.
The High Court held that Fringe Benefit Tax and Section 14A disallowance cannot be added while computing MAT under Section 115JB. The ruling confirms that only adjustments expressly permitted by law can alter book profits.
