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 : 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...
Income Tax : High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capita...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proof of actual cessation of liability. It found that m...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that mere non-payment or expiry of limitation does not amount to cessation of liability. In absence of actual be...
Custom Duty : Stay updated with the latest amendment to the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 by the Central Board of Indire...
The Tribunal held that MAT relief under section 115JB cannot continue once a company’s net worth becomes positive, as the scheme required only consideration—not automatic grant—of exemption.
ITAT held that once income is accounted in the Profit & Loss statement, further addition by the tax authority is unlawful. The order restores the correct claim of losses and eliminates double addition.
ITAT Chennai granted relief, holding that reversal of a provision for liquidated damages, which was disallowed and subsequently taxed under VSV Scheme in earlier years, cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). This prevents double taxation.
Supreme Court held that informing an arrestee’s spouse or recording diary entries is no substitute for directly informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
ITAT Delhi ruled in Gurmeet Singh Sethi Vs ITO that an addition under Section 41(1) of Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on a debtor’s unilateral write-off of sundry creditors without confirmation from creditors.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted an addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that a written-back liability already taxed cannot be subjected to double taxation.
ITAT Chennai held that waiver of amount of loan, whether principal or interest component, cannot be brought to tax under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and addition directed to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata partly allows Utpal Sarkar’s appeal against DCIT, addressing bogus sundry creditors and inter-unit transactions. Case remanded for further verification.
ITAT Nagpur rules in ITO Vs N. Kumar Housing, addressing ₹5.2 crore addition under Sections 41(1) and 68. Liability cessation and unexplained cash credits analyzed.
ITAT Kolkata upholds CIT(A)’s decision to delete ₹3.92 crore additions under Section 41(1), ruling no cessation of liabilities in AY 2014–15 for Shreekrishan Goswami.
