Income Tax : Smt. Ranjana Kumari/Kalta Vs DCIT/ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh) The appeals involved three assessees belonging to the Kalta Gro...
Income Tax : Learn how business and professional income is computed under the Income-tax Act after the Finance Act, 2026. This guide explains t...
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 : Interest income earned by a foreign bank from foreign currency loans extended to Indian corporates was taxable on a gross basis. S...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held legal services are not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) and directed partner-wise DTAA examination. FTS addition was de...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld taxation of IPS and CEV subsidies following the Section 2(24) amendment, while partly allowing the appeal on other iss...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Accounting Standard-19 governs accounting treatment but does not determine tax treatment under the Income-tax Act. ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) could not apply in the absence of any finding by the competent authority ...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that goodwill arose from the excess of consideration over the net value of tangible assets transferred in amalgamation and was therefore a valid intangible asset eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii).
CESTAT Delhi held that re-assessment will come to an end once the goods are exported in case of Shipping Bills and once the officer gives an order clearing the goods for home consumption in case of imports.
Delhi High Court held that it is no longer open for the department to proceed with the adjudication of show cause notice which had not been adjudicated for almost fourteen years. Thus, letter recommencing adjudication proceedings are set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act is not attracted to the licensee/assessee in respect of electricity duty. Thus, question is answered in favour of the assessee and hence appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that since issue of jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] is resolved and held that they are proper officer for the purpose of section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notice.
CESTAT Delhi upheld the inclusion of metal lease charges in assessable value since the same was paid as a condition of sale and not paid in nature of interest. Accordingly, differential duty demand confirmed.
The decisions also hold that if the data is not stored in the computer but officers take out a printout from the hard disk drive by connecting it to the computer, then a certificate under section 36B of the Central Excise Act is mandatory.
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.
