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 ...
The Supreme Court held that failure to issue a Section 21 notice does not invalidate arbitration where parties intended to arbitrate all disputes. The ruling clarifies that Section 21 is procedural, not jurisdictional.
The dispute arose from survey-based additions relying mainly on a statement and impounded agreement. The Tribunal held that the matter needed fresh examination and remanded it to the AO with one final opportunity.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
The Tribunal held that deciding an appeal on merits without granting an effective hearing breaches section 250(2) and natural justice. Repeated adjournments alone cannot justify ex-parte disposal, especially in search-based estimation cases.
CESTAT held that sending imported goods to a job worker does not violate the non-transfer condition of the Target Plus Scheme. Ownership remaining with the importer was found decisive.
The Supreme Court held that delay in filing execution and depositing balance sale consideration does not by itself render a decree inexecutable. Readiness and willingness, not rigid timelines, remain the decisive test.
The issue was whether interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition is exempt from tax. The Tribunal held that after the 2010 amendment, such interest is taxable as income from other sources, not exempt under section 10(37).
The tribunal held that every oil well constitutes an independent undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IB(9). The key takeaway is that profits of individual wells cannot be clubbed merely because they operate under a single contract.
ITAT Bangalore restored ₹4.19 crore claimed as revenue loss to CIT(A) for fresh examination. The Tribunal emphasized that proper assessment under Sections 37(1) and 28 is essential before allowing write-offs.
The judgment clarifies that expenses incurred solely for Indian branches may be allowed under Section 37(1). Only qualifying head office expenses face the Section 44C ceiling.
