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-...
Bombay High Court granted conditional bail to Customs House Agent involved in transportation of drugs since applicant is already in custody for last 3 years and conclusion of trial in near future is a remote possibility.
Delhi High Court held that order issued u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wrongly challenged on the assumption that it is draft assessment order u/s. 144C is untenable in law. Accordingly, cost of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that since court is unable to reach to conclusion that applicant is not guilty and also the threshold of section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] not crossed, the bail application is rejected.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that cancellation of GST registration for entire places of business for non-submission of NOC by landowner of additional place of business is complete non-application of mind. Accordingly, cancellation of GST registration not justified.
Delhi High Court, in the case of smuggling of Methaqualone denied the bail application since threshold of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] not having been crossed.
ITAT Bangalore remitted the matter back to CIT(A) so that assessee can file necessary documents with regard to disallowance made under section 37 of the Income Tax Act as order was passed by CIT(A) without adjourning the matter as sought by assessee.
The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal to correct errors of fact and does not, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226, trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief.
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Deepak Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar and others, group of cases based at Delhi.
Present appeal has been filed by the appellant mainly contesting that whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there has been no diversion of income by overriding charge in respect of amount transferred to Statutory Reserve Fund in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sec.45IC read with Sec. 45Q of RBI Act.
Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
