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...
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption from customs duty admissible on import of flood lights which is used for all matches conducted in the stadium whether it is world cup international match or one day international match.
AO noticed that the assessee in its computation of income claimed prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/- and he asked to clarify or show-cause as to how the prepaid finance charges were allowable.
Compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) as the provisions of section 10(37) deal with ‘compensation’ only and not interest on compensation or enhanced compensation.
ITAT Delhi held that cost to cost reimbursement on account of secondment of employees cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under Article 12 of India USA-DTAA. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that the amount of redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order is equal to the value of the goods itself, the same is harsh, accordingly, concluded that the amount of redemption fine must be reduced.
CESTAT Bangalore held that rejecting request for amendment of declared value in bill of entry (BOE) without awaiting outcome of DRI investigation not justified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back to adjudication authority.
CESTAT Chennai held that the imported Clear Float Glass is more appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 7005 1090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thus is eligible for exemption of the benefit of the Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.
Madras High Court held that compensation paid to ESOP holders qualifies as perquisite and hence taxable under the head ‘salary’. The same cannot be treated as capital receipt.
In lieu of the appellant discontinuing the commodity brokerage business, BNP Paribas offered compensation of Rs.40 crores. Pursuant thereto, in a meeting held on 23.05.2008, resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of the appellant accepting the said offer.
CESTAT Delhi held that granting “call option” is not an activity of rendering service. Thus, appellant has wrongly been held to have been a service provider while receiving “call option fee”.
