Corporate Law : Explore complexities of PMLA bail conditions, their impact on accused, and constitutional concerns. A comprehensive analysis sheds...
Income Tax : Explore Income-Tax Implications of Joint Development Agreements in Property Transactions. Unveil the complexities of Section 45(5A...
Income Tax : Learn how Joint Development Agreements (JDA) affect income tax under Section 45(5A) of the Income Tax Act. Understand calculations...
Income Tax : Dive into the Principle of Mutuality, exploring its meaning, tax implications, and impact on cooperative societies. Discover case ...
Income Tax : Any Profit or gain arising from the transfer of Capital asset is taxable as a Capital Gain u/s 45 of the Income Tax act, 1961. It ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Dehradun held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied merely for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Schem...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the word purchase under Section 54 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation. Genuine investment...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly verify the genuineness of a cancelled property sale transaction before accepting ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed ...
Corporate Law : Discover the implications of the government's notification on Section 64B of the Competition Act, effective from October 26, 2023....
Income Tax : It is noticed that the amount taxed under sub-section (4) of section 45 of the Act is required to be attributed to the remaining c...
Income Tax : CBDT vide Notification No. 76/2021-Income Tax | Dated: 2nd July, 2021 amends rule 8AA which relates to Method of determination of ...
Allahabad High Court granted bail to applicant involved in criminal matter based on the principle of ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception’ and also concluding that there are no chance of absconding.
Delhi High Court observed that once the DGFT had proceeded to issue the MEIS scrip to the writ petitioners, they would have been justified in assuming that the issue of classification was neither questioned nor doubted.
Putting together a structure of plywood sheets cannot be construed as constructing a residential house. The Inspector had also reported that there was no electricity or water connection on the land and electricity was used by genset.
Delhi High Court held that appeal pertaining to period prior to 01 April 2005 is maintainable under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) instead of section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 since appeal is preferred after 01 April 2005.
Held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit. Particularly in view of the excruciating fact that reduction of subsidy from written down value was accepted by the Assessing Officer and he did not tinker with the amount of depreciation claimed.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules merely on the basis of report of enforcement authority, without independent or cogent reasons, impermissible in law.
A Company Petition u/s. 95 of the IBC was filed by Operational Creditor-White Line Enterprises against Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chugh-Appellant who stood as a Personal Guarantor for repayment of the operational debt owed by M/s Sahil Home Loomtex Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is not entitled for concession rate of tax of 20% provided under section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act on the short term capital gain computed under section 50 of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka High Court held that order passed blocking Input Tax Credit by invoking of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules quashed as order was passed without providing pre-decisional hearing and without giving cogent reasons.
ITAT Raipur held that belated return of income filed by payee u/s. 139(4) satisfies the 1st proviso to section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act hence assessee cannot be treated as ‘assessee in default’.
