Income Tax : Understand Section 43 of the IBC, covering preferential transactions, antecedent debt, look-back periods for related and unrelated...
Income Tax : Learn about taxation on derivatives and F&O transactions, their treatment as business income, audit requirements, and presumptive ...
Income Tax : Explore conflicting rulings on whether bonafide mistakes in disclosing foreign assets under the Black Money Act can avoid penaltie...
Income Tax : F&O traders need to know how their profits are taxed. With the ITR return filing date approaching, it is imperative to know how st...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Finance Act, 2023, on MSME payment enforcement under section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand ...
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-...
Income Tax : Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that disallowance in terms of section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D restricted to the extent of in...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act added to Book Profits for computing taxes under se...
Income Tax : The case involved a penalty for alleged non-disclosure of a foreign bank account. The Tribunal held that ambiguity regarding linke...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : Notification No. 15/2014-Income Tax entral Government hereby notifies the Ace Derivatives and Commodity Exchange Limited, Ahmedaba...
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-generating intra-group service. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment after finding the benchmarking method adopted by the TPO unjustified.
Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance in terms of section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D restricted to the extent of investment which yielded exempt income. Accordingly, disallowance restricted and appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act added to Book Profits for computing taxes under section 115JB Income Tax Act deserved to be deleted.
The case involved a penalty for alleged non-disclosure of a foreign bank account. The Tribunal held that ambiguity regarding linked currency accounts required fresh verification before sustaining the penalty.
The issue was whether the NCLT could declare ownership of a trademark during CIRP. The Supreme Court held that title disputes not arising directly from insolvency fall outside Section 60(5) jurisdiction.
Gujarat High Court held that amendment/ rectification of inadvertent error in GST returns [Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B] is permissible if no loss to revenue would be caused. Accordingly, petition is allowed and returns are permitted to be amended.
The issue was whether reassessment notices could be issued by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless reassessment scheme became mandatory. The Tribunal held that such notices are void, rendering the entire reassessment unsustainable.
Karnataka High Court held that rejects arbitral award since the HDFC Bank’s claim was barred by limitation. Also held that failure of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claim on the said ground, is foundational and vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality on the face of the record.
The issue was whether a hydro power subsidy should reduce the cost of assets. The Tribunal held the subsidy was for project encouragement, not asset cost. Depreciation withdrawal was therefore unsustainable.
