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 ...
Assessee had received Rs. 13.36 crores by cheque/RTGS out of total cash deposit of Rs.24.35 crores in bank account of M/s R. S. Traders during demonetization period. During the survey, several documents and evidences were collected and impounded.
During the course of a survey, it was seen that the assessee had defaulted in deducting tax at source on interest paid to AGE Patel Joint Venture (JV) in Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 on Mobilisation advance and Machinery advance.
Delhi High Court quashed orders due to inordinate delay of more than 11 years in finalizing adjudication proceeding. Held that matters having financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept unresolved for years.
Delhi High Court held the issuance of notice under section 28(4) of the Customs Act post issuance of notice under section 28(1) on similar factual matrix is bad in law. Thus, subsequent notice issued u/s. 28(4) is set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that fresh assessment is necessary in case of taxability of interest earned from Fixed Deposit from compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. Thus, matter restored for fresh assessment.
In the present case, recovery or repayment of fraudulent income does not qualify as an allowable expense. Allowing deductions for recovery of fraudulent income would contradict the legislative intent of the Income-tax Act.
The assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India and is in the business of Non-Life Insurance, The assessee offers insurance covers for large projects like power plants, petrochemical, steel and chemical plants.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not justifiable as twin pre-conditions not satisfied.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The writ petitioner impugns the order dated 27 March 2018 in terms of which the respondent has come to reject applications filed by it seeking refund of excess tax wrongly deducted and deposited u/s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
