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 : The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon wri...
Income Tax : The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey st...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that grants disbursed by a statutory corporation formed part of its core business functions and qualified a...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-...
Transportation and sub-contract expenses were disallowed as the supporting MOU predated the JV formation. The court upheld the Assessing Officer’s disallowance, noting no contractual or statutory basis for the claim. This highlights the importance of valid agreements for claiming business deductions.
The Tribunal held that suspicion or reference to unconnected investigations cannot justify denying legitimate interest expenditure. It reiterated that opening balances accepted in earlier years cannot be treated as non-genuine in a subsequent year without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s findings after noting the assessee produced no evidence to counter verified disallowances. Key takeaway: appellate relief requires substantiated rebuttal of factual verification.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
The tribunal held that the State Electricity Board consumer tariff of ₹6.62/unit was the valid internal CUP for captive power transfer. Rejecting comparisons with generating companies, it ruled that no downward adjustment was required. The key takeaway is that actual SEB purchase rates can reliably determine market value for 80IA claims.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid since the original scrutiny had already examined the issue and no fresh information indicating suppression or omission was found. Reopening based solely on a change of opinion was rejected. The ruling reinforces that section 147 requires tangible new material.
ITAT emphasized that taxpayers must substantiate the receipt and benefit of group services, remanding the matter due to inadequate examination by lower authorities.
Tribunal upholds disallowance of ₹76 lakh paid for regularizing building deviations, ruling such compounding fees are penalties under Section 37(1) and not deductible.
Tribunal held that tax authorities erred in invoking Article 24A to deny capital gains exemption under Article 13(4A) without first satisfying preconditions of economic substance. The decision underscores that anti-abuse provisions cannot override bona fide investments made before 2017.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
