Income Tax : PGBP governs the computation of business and professional income. It defines chargeable income (Sec. 28, 41) including statutory a...
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about the scope of GST on commission income. Understand the invoice test, registration thresholds, and key rulings that clar...
Income Tax : Understand the penalties, interest, and disallowance of expenditure under Section 201 for failure to comply with TDS provisions in...
Income Tax : Understand whether director remuneration is taxed as salary or business income. Learn about tax implications, employer-employee re...
Income Tax : Explore the discussion between CA Micky and CA Mini on Sections 68 & 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Learn about unexplained cash cred...
Income Tax : Consistency over technicalities: ITAT Mumbai allowed actuarial pension provision as an ascertained liability, rejected mechanical ...
Service Tax : Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evad...
Custom Duty : The case addressed whether a custodian could be held liable for duty when container contents differed from declared goods. The Tri...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that interest on bank deposits from operational funds of a co-operative credit society is eligible for deducti...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during a...
Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Great prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff if interim relief is not granted to the plaintiff.
Overlooking COO without following procedure set out in Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Member States of ASEAN and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009 is untenable.
CESTAT Chennai held that issuance of show cause notice after elapsing of more than six years period from the time of exports is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon cannot be sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that head office expenditure incurred outside India exclusively for the Indian branches does not fall within the ambit of section 44C of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that fees for providing Spa Consultancy falls under the category of ‘Independent Personal Service’ and hence was not taxable in India and therefore assessee was not required to deduct TDS. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) deleted.
Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that the authorities are legally obligated to conclude the adjudication with due expedition, thus an inordinate and unexplained delay on behalf of the authorities would constitute sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, petition allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad orders AO to re-examine rectification request after depreciation was wrongly considered as net profit in tax intimation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that customs authority doesn’t have authority to pass an order of provisional attachment under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 during pendency of investigation. Accordingly, freezing of bank account not justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that section 28(9) of Customs Act mandates adjudication of show cause notice within one year. Thus, adjudication of notice after around 10 years of issuance, without justifiable reason, is not tenable and hence order issued thereon is liable to be quashed.
