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 Kolkata held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts for the purpose of calculation of ‘gross receipts’ under the presumptive taxation as per section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal allowed.
Delhi High Court observed that once the DGFT had proceeded to issue the MEIS scrip to the writ petitioners, they would have been justified in assuming that the issue of classification was neither questioned nor doubted.
CESTAT Chennai held that insulin manufactured using r-DNA technology would qualify as a mono component insulin and hence benefit of exemption notification under Notification No. 12/2012 – Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available.
Petitioners sought for an adjournment requesting relevant papers to examine the legality of the personal hearing notice. Respondent No.3 furnished documents most of which were handwritten and illegible.
Kerala High Court held that amount of interest received by the foreman of a chit on defaulting subscriptions cannot be said to be amounts received as consideration for the supply of services. Thus, the same is not leviable to GST.
ITAT Mumbai held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount while computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be included. Thus, issue decided in favour of assessee.
The respondents issued a show cause notice u/s. 28 and 124 of the Customs Act alleging a shortage of stock of diamonds imported after taking into account the exports effected, resulting evasion in customs duty to substantial extent.
The Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (‘Flextronics SEZ unit’) imported the goods, described by the petitioner as stand-alone parts/components, into India from Huawei, China.
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kanchipuram (HMIL), are engaged in the manufacture of passenger motor cars, under the brand name of “Hyundai”. They import various parts and accessories of passenger motor cars through Chennai ports.
Supreme Court held that officers of DRI are entrusted with the functions of proper officer and thus has jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
