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 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.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings must follow proper procedure when the assessee is deceased. The tax authority must issue notice to the legal representative before initiating proceedings.
The High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
