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...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court rules in Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd, emphasizing that only parties to arbitration proceedings can ch...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules against Section 41(1) addition when no cessation of liability occurs, directing cancellation of a demand in the c...
Income Tax : Dive into the detailed analysis of Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port's case against DCIT at ITAT Kolkata regarding Section 41(1) of the ...
Custom Duty : Lovy International challenged rejection of Drawback to ROSCTL conversion. CESTAT Delhi ruled CBEC Circular time limit invalid. Det...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of Ecokrin Hygiene Pvt. Ltd., deleting additions under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act solely based...
Custom Duty : Stay updated with the latest amendment to the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 by the Central Board of Indire...
Kerala High Court held that as petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice and failed to attend the hearing. Thus, petitioner chose not to provide any evidence in respect of his claim of input tax credit. Hence, writ not entertained.
Jharkhand High Court held that Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [JVAT Act] doesn’t have any provision for initiation of re-assessment proceedings against a re-assessment order. In case assessing authority is allowed to initiate repeated re-assessment proceeding merely on dictate of audit party there would be no finality of assessment.
AO without bringing any material or reasons before making any addition, simply added back the opening balances of the trade payables without making any verification from the parties and he had failed to discharge the preliminary onus and had made the addition in summary manners, therefore, CIT(A) had committed no error in deleting the addition made u/s 41.
Bombay High Court held that taking recourse to the provisions of Section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of the Letter of Rogatory by the Magistrate without following procedure prescribed under section 155(2) cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that Para 3(a) of Circular No. 36/2010 Customs dated 23.09.2010 imposing time limits for amending shipping bills is ultra vires of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
ITAT Kolkata held that disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee under section 41 of the Income Tax Act in a hypothetical way is unjustified and accordingly matter set aside for afresh examination.
Analysis of ITAT Delhis ruling in Luxor Writing Instruments (P) Ltd Vs DCIT. The tribunal clarifies that the waiver of a loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment of High Court, wherein adequate compensation was provided on Land Acquisition while considering the relevant factors such as determining the deduction for development charges, the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, and the purpose of acquisition.
Mere collection of tax by the selling dealer is not sufficient; the tax must be duly paid to the government. The burden of proof lies with the purchasing dealer to substantiate that the tax collected has indeed been paid to the government by the supplier.
ITAT Mumbai held that under regular provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, the provision for doubtful debt being in the nature of diminution in value of asset, it also attracts explanation (i) of the section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, addition of book profit sustained.
