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 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”.
The assessment was completed by Ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determining total income at Rs.2,78,46,98,694/-. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.
Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Explore the discussion between CA Micky and CA Mini on Sections 68 & 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Learn about unexplained cash credits and presumptive taxation.
