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-...
Restoring the Assessing Officer’s findings, the Tribunal ruled that excessive salary to related directors can be disallowed when it substitutes dividend distribution. Reasonableness must be judged against comparable market remuneration.
The issue was whether the entire purchase amount could be added under Section 69C based solely on an entry-operator’s denial. The Tribunal ruled that since sales were accepted and books not rejected, only a 10% estimated disallowance was justified.
BOCW and welfare cess laws could be treated as subsequent legislation under highway contracts. The Supreme Court held that unless welfare boards and machinery were actually implemented, the cess could not be imposed retrospectively on contractors.
The Tribunal examined disallowance of commission paid to cooperative milk unions and held that the payments were actually mandatory royalty fixed by government instructions. Since the assessee had no discretion and the recipients disclosed income, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers did not reply to Section 133(6) notices. When books are audited, evidence is produced, and sales are accepted, disallowance under Section 69C is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that employee stock option plan costs are allowable revenue expenditure. Following binding High Court precedent, the ₹93 lakh disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that extended block assessment beyond six years is invalid where escaped income is below ₹50 lakh. Jurisdiction under Sections 153A/153C cannot be assumed without meeting statutory limits.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of rental receipts as income from house property because the companys principal object was not property letting. It ruled that business income treatment cannot be claimed merely based on incidental objects in the memorandum.
ITAT Mumbai held that where segmental accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments have to be made only in respect of the international transactions with associated enterprises [AE]. Thus, TPO directed to compute the transfer pricing [TP] adjustment, restricting it to the international transactions undertaken with associated enterprises.
The Tribunal held that a clerical error in the tax audit report, later corrected through a revised report, cannot be the basis for disallowance under section 143(1). Automated adjustments must reflect correct facts.
