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-...
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing company.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the amount of refund issued to the assessee will be first adjusted against the interest then, after that against the principal amount.
ITAT Mumbai held that Corporate Guarantee facility provided to overseas AE by the assessee is an international transaction and hence addition towards Arm’s Length Guarantee Fee confirmed.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s ruling on a case, ITO Vs Logix Buildcon Pvt Ltd, asserting that the interest incurred towards project expenses cannot be deducted.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest paid towards refund of excess claim of duty drawback is not in the nature of penalty or fine. Accordingly, provisions of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the I.T. Act not violated.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act towards investment made out of interest free own funds available with the assessee is unjustifiable and hence deleted.
CESTAT Bangalore held that with effect from 01.03.2005 branded jewellery are chargeable to excise duty @2%. However, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of establishment of allegation of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty.
The tribunal observed that the liability to pay the Customs Duty had crystallized during the relevant year, as the company could not fulfill its export obligation. Therefore, the deduction of the Customs Duty was allowable in the same year. The ITAT Chennai cited Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for statutory dues in the year of payment, irrespective of the accounting method followed by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that membership fee expenses have been incurred for acquisition of individual club membership is not allowable as expenditure in terms of provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.ITAT Mumbai held that membership fee expenses have been incurred for acquisition of individual club membership is not allowable as expenditure in terms of provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC in terms of section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return. Accordingly, adjustment is permissible under the scope of section 143(1).
