Goods and Services Tax : Explore the critical implications of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 on taxpayers' Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility and the ...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of Income Tax Section 41, covering allowances, deductions, and financial transactions. Real-world examples...
Income Tax : Whether Remission Of Trading Liability Separately Taxable Where Income From Business Has Been Declared On Presumptive Basis U/S 44...
Income Tax : Any person being Individual/HUF/Company/Firm/LLP etc. providing any benefit or perquisite whether convertible into money or not, i...
Income Tax : ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION When a loan taken for acquiring a depreciable capital asset or a part of the purchase price of such capita...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the Revenue could not substitute the assessee's consistent method of revenue recognition with the Percent...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest...
Income Tax : Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC's jurisdiction. Howeve...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of ac...
Income Tax : The ITAT Raipur held that additions for cessation of liability cannot be made merely because creditor confirmations were not filed...
Custom Duty : Stay updated with the latest amendment to the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 by the Central Board of Indire...
Rejecting reliance on time lapse and regulatory issues, the Tribunal held that a trading liability remains valid unless actually extinguished. The addition under Section 41(1) was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that passing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is not a mere procedural defect. It held that participation in proceedings does not validate a void assessment.
ITAT Bangalore held that mere long-pending sundry creditors cannot be taxed under Section 41(1) unless there is actual remission or legal cessation of liability. Continued reflection of liabilities in books prevents addition as income.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
Assessees were qualified as companies owning an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 72A. Accordingly, the carry forward and set-off of accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating transport corporations was allowable.
Taxing a debenture waiver as revenue income was challenged. The Tribunal rejected the approach, holding the waiver arose from capital financing and not trading operations. The ruling confirms that capital restructuring gains are not taxable by default.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable where title, possession, and identity of land are seriously disputed. In such cases, the proper remedy is a suit for possession or declaration, not injunction alone.
The court held that valid registration under income-tax law is a relevant factor under FCRA and cannot be ignored. Failure to consider it violated Section 52, which makes FCRA supplementary to other laws.
The Tribunal ruled that a creditor’s write-off alone cannot trigger section 41(1) taxation. The assessee’s liability persisted in its books, and the ₹10.23 crore addition was deleted.
The Tribunal examined whether GST could be included in gross receipts for presumptive income. It held that GST is a statutory levy with no income element and must be excluded under section 44BB.
