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-...
The issue was whether a post-search assessment could be completed under section 143(3) using third-party material. The Tribunal ruled that the special reassessment route under sections 148 and 148B was mandatory.
The Tribunal examined whether professional fees claimed were actually incurred and for business purposes. It held that absence of evidence like bank payment, TDS, and service details justified disallowance.
Authorities added ₹8 crore as unexplained investment in the wrong year. The Tribunal confirmed that the cash component belonged to a prior year. The ruling stresses year-specific taxation of undisclosed transactions.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on unverified Investigation Wing inputs, factual inconsistencies, and no direct nexus to the assessee’s transactions is invalid. Mechanical reproduction of information cannot sustain reassessment.
The Tribunal upheld depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The ruling confirms that excess consideration recognized as goodwill qualifies for depreciation under section 32.
The Tribunal ruled that estimating higher profit without rejecting audited books or finding major defects is impermissible. The declared 7% margin was accepted as reasonable, emphasizing limits on ad-hoc profit estimation.
The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance where interest-free funds were higher than tax-free investments. It reaffirmed that no interest disallowance arises in such circumstances.
The issue was whether revision could stand on incorrect factual assumptions. ITAT held that misreading records makes the revision invalid, reaffirming that Section 263 needs real errors.
The issue was whether the High Court could interfere with an arbitral award upheld under Section 34. The Supreme Court held that Section 37 jurisdiction is limited and cannot re-examine merits or reinterpret the contract.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 was valid for multiple expense claims. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined issues and adopted a plausible view, revision was unsustainable.
