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 ...
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.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment of High Court, wherein adequate compensation was provided on Land Acquisition while considering the relevant factors such as determining the deduction for development charges, the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, and the purpose of acquisition.
CESTAT Delhi held that goods imported are snow goggles and not sunglasses. Accordingly, the goods i.e. snow goggles are classifiable under residual CTH 90049090 as others and cannot fall under CTH 90041000 as sun glasses.
ITAT Mumbai held that shares held as investment is taxable under capital gain. The same cannot be treated as business income on the ground that the assessee was participating in the business of JMMSSPL and had had transferred the controlling/business interest.
