Income Tax : Understand the impact of Section 43B(h) on businesses: Learn about deductions for MSME payments and the importance of timely payme...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Finance Act, 2023, on MSME payment enforcement under section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of the recent Income Tax amendment to Section 43B affecting MSMEs. Understand how timely payments are cru...
Income Tax : Explore key income tax compliance requirements for charitable and educational institutions under the Income Tax Act for the assess...
Income Tax : Discover simplified taxation scheme under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act. Learn eligibility criteria, exemptions, and key insights...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore ruled that income tax additions can't be based solely on unsubstantiated loose slips, emphasizing the need for ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that time limit for filing rectification applications starts only when assessee is aware of order passed, not from date ...
Income Tax : Analysis of Om Prakash Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) case reveals PCIT's jurisdiction limitations on tax issues under Land Acquisition Act ...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed analysis of Jai Parkash Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) case where the assessment jurisdiction dispute regarding interes...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court held that penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 cannot be imposed in cases, wherein, the a...
ITAT Bangalore held that proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in the present case as sufficient internal cash accruals available during the impugned year are more that interest free funds advanced to the sister concern.
ITAT Indore held that the deeming fiction created in section 50C cannot be extended to the provision of section 69 or 69B or any other of the Act in the case of purchaser to make the purchaser liable for tax.
ITAT Bangalore held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable only when the asset is put to use for the business purpose. Notably, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assets are put to use for the business purposes only.
CESTAT Kolkata held that gold bars/ pieces cannot be proved to be smuggled merely relying on the retracted statements without any other corroborative evidence. Accordingly, confiscation unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-valuation of goods without first rejecting the transaction value of the goods is not in accordance with law. Show cause notice without proposal of rejection of transaction value or demanding differential duty is both speculative and presumptive.
ITAT Delhi held that if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, then, refusing to condone the delay in filing of an appeal is an error. Action of refusing to condone the delay, but, to dispose off the appeal on merit is untenable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that education cess and Secondary and higher Secondary Education cess being part of the tax is not allowable as deduction.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejecting exemption benefit and duty demand u/s 28 of Customs Act, 1962 by reassessing ‘cameras’ under general and residual description i.e. ‘others’ under 8525 8090 instead of declared specified classification i.e. 8525 8020 is unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 102/2007 cannot be denied merely because the imported goods were of logs whereas the same were sawn and sold in DTA.
ITAT Jaipur held that officers of DRI are not proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and hence order and show cause notice are not maintainable. Accordingly, addition confirmed thereon is unsustainable.
