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 ...
The First Appellate authority further directed the assessing authority to reopen the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2010-11 and from 2012-13 onwards to disallow the set off of the claim of unabsorbed depreciation computed from 1998-99 onwards.
Madras High Court held that the entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses, without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding, is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.
Bombay High Court held that there is no employer-employee relationship prior to the year 2018 hence industrial court doesn’t have jurisdiction to entertain complaint of unfair labour practice. Thus, writ allowed.
Disallowance on dividend income claimed by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance was deleted as Section 44, being a non-obstante clause, overrides the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing income for life insurance companies.
The securities were treated as stock-in-trade in the hands of assessee. The amount received by assessee on the sale of the securities was considered for computing its business income.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is not required to prove that a particular debt had become bad debt in order to claim deduction on account of bad debt written off pursuant to the amendment made u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.1989.
Delhi High Court held that department cannot possibly seek to justify the retention of refund claim on account of its having been deposited voluntarily or being barred by limitation. Accordingly, refund claim allowed.
Held that reserve arising out of amalgamation is capital in nature and cannot be treated as revenue under the ambit of section 28(iv) of the Act. CIT (A) is correct in holding that capital reserve cannot be treated as an Income u/s 28(iv) of the Act.
Interest income from bank deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the funds in the voluntary reserves which were utilized for investment by the co-operative banks were the funds generated from the banking business.
Bombay High Court held that the deduction on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act is distinct and independent of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act relating to allowance of the bad debts.
