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...
ITAT Jaipur held that Urban Improvement Trust is a “State” within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of State within the meaning thereof. Hence, income is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that late filing of audit report cannot disentitle trust from availing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) allowing claim of exemption u/s. 11 upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹1.06 crore addition under Section 41(1). The tribunal held that the unsecured loans were used for capital expenditure, not trading purposes, making the addition inapplicable.
Royalty paid for technical know-how was not a ‘condition of sale’ merely because it was included in the value of imported goods as it pertained to post-importation activities relating to the manufacture of finished goods in India and was not a condition of sale of imported components.
Rajkot ITAT deleted an addition of ₹94.81 lakh, holding that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act is accretion to compensation, not interest taxable under Section 56(2)(viii). Since acquired land was rural agricultural land (not a capital asset), compensation, including Section 28 interest, is wholly exempt from tax.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that settlement payments in relation to patent disputes are allowable as business deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act since the same is not a penalty for an offence or for a purpose prohibited by law.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘wheel loaders’ are classifiable as ‘front-end shovel loaders’ and hence are covered under Customs Tariff Heading 8429 5100. However, demand for only normal period is sustained and demand for extended period is set aside.
Loss of ₹7.66 Crore was allowable as bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), recognising the loss as a genuine business loss arising from NSEL’s operational suspension.
CESTAT Delhi held that Cap Sub Assembly for Door Outside Handle 423205-11480 is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 87082900 as contented by the Department. Accordingly, benefit under notification no. 46/2011 Customs not admissible.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
