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...
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).
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty levied for late filing of Profession Tax Return is penal in nature accordingly is not allowable as business expenditure.
Delhi High Court granted regular bail on the reasonable grounds based on which it can be believed that the petitioner is not guilty of offence under section 3 of PMLA and also that petitioner has materially co-operated in the investigation.
ITAT Mumbai’s decision in case of DCIT vs KEC International Limited, where a 0.6% arm’s length rate was established for corporate guarantee fees, influencing future transfer pricing adjustments.
