Income Tax : Understand whether director remuneration is taxed as salary or business income. Learn about tax implications, employer-employee re...
Income Tax : Explore provisions under the Income-tax Act for computing business income, including various chargeable incomes and accounting met...
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 : Understand the impact of Section 43B(h) on businesses: Learn about deductions for MSME payments and the importance of timely payme...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Finance Act, 2023, on MSME payment enforcement under section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand ...
Income Tax : The writ petitioner impugns the order dated 27 March 2018 in terms of which the respondent has come to reject applications filed b...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that duty has to be paid when goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold...
Custom Duty : Disha Realcon and SM Niryat had exported iron ore fines whose Fe content was below 58% under some Shipping Bills and iron ore fine...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that where Commissioner (Appeals) passed ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice, one mor...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Kolkata held that owner of the car is liable to pay customs duty on redemption of the confiscated vehicle/ car even if the ...
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”.
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.
