Corporate Law : Supreme Court clarifies power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 in Gayatri Balaswamy case, raising questions on finality,...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowed expenses under PGBP in India's Income Tax Act. Understand key sections like 37, 40, and 40A, and their impa...
Income Tax : Delhi HC rules reimbursements to NRAEs not subject to TDS as "fees for technical services," clarifying scope of Section 9(1)(vii) ...
Income Tax : Understand the impact of Section 43B(h) on businesses: Learn about deductions for MSME payments and the importance of timely payme...
Corporate Law : Discover the process and types of trademark assignment. Learn about procedures, required documents, and benefits for a smooth tran...
Corporate Law : Explore the proposed amendments to Regulations 35, 37, and 50 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009. L...
Income Tax : Allowability of Interest paid under Incometax Act, 1961: Presently, interest paid by the Government to an assessee is chargeable t...
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 : The Gujarat High Court held that a scientifically determined warranty provision qualified for consideration under settled legal pr...
Income Tax : ITAT held that increased employee remuneration cannot be disallowed merely because business revenue declined where the expenditure...
Income Tax : ITAT held Section 43CA did not apply as the flats were booked before the provision became effective, deleting the addition based o...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that royalty payments should continue to be benchmarked under TNMM by following earlier decisions in the a...
The Tribunal held that commission paid to overseas agents formed part of the true FOB export value and was not properly declared, violating Section 7 of FEMA. However, penalties were substantially reduced after considering the overall facts.
The Tribunal held that export values were reduced to account for overseas commission payments, violating Section 7 of FEMA. However, penalties were substantially reduced considering the facts and partial relief was granted.
The Court ruled that reopening based solely on an audit objection amounts to change of opinion if the issue was previously examined. Without fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings are unsustainable.
The PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that proving source of source was not mandatory for AY 2014-15. Since identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established, unsecured loan additions were deleted.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of ₹60 lakh addition after finding that the assessee furnished confirmations, audited financials, bank statements, and Section 133(6) replies. In absence of direct evidence linking loans to accommodation entries, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed using the final stamp value determined after litigation, not an earlier inflated valuation, and directed deletion of the resulting addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
The issue was whether purchases recorded by the assessee were genuine. The Tribunal held that seized Tally data and statements proved bogus purchases, justifying full addition.
The dispute concerned whether courts could revisit the validity of an arbitration clause after appointing an arbitrator. The Supreme Court held that once the Section 11 order became final under the pre-2015 regime, the issue could not be reopened.
