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...
Analyzing the S R Traders vs. Commissioner of Customs case under Customs Act Section 28, including undervaluation and compliance issues with cosmetics imports.
ITAT Delhi held that addition by invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as liability reflected as outstanding in books of accounts and there is no evidence that such liability has ceased during the year.
ITAT Mumbai held that that loss arising due to embezzlement by the employees should be treated as incidental to the business such loss so suffered is allowable as deduction under section 28 of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that attachment of saving bank account and detention of goods in absence of duty demand without service of notice is also without jurisdiction and without any authority of law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained expenditure based on dumb documents not sustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that without advancing reasons for doubting or rejecting the load port test certificate, there was no real justification for resort to provisional assessment and drawing of samples. Accordingly, customs duty exemption granted.
ITAT Rajkot held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 non-invocation of section 115BBE of the Act on the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors u/s. 68 of the Act is duly justifiable.
CESTAT Chennai held that once the licencing authority has found that the licencing conditions have been fulfilled, it would not be open to the customs authorities too contend that the imports under the licence are contrary to law.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained and undisclosed income sustained as assessee itself claim payment of cash in the civil suit and failed to explain the source of the cash payment.
Delhi High Court held that in terms of section 28(9) of the Customs Act the show cause notice needs to be adjudicated within a period of six months or within one year. Adjudication of notice after expiry of the said period is time-barred.
