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 held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. The benefit cannot be restric...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 ...
Corporate Law : An accused could not be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reas...
Corporate Law : The SC held that the accused was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours after the ED assumed custody, renderin...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that ownership premises received under a redevelopment scheme are acquired in exchange for valuable tenancy r...
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 ...
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’.
Delhi High Court held that section 45(3) of the Customs Act provides that the custodian of the imported goods having been in custody is liable to pay duty in case they are pilfered while in custody. Accordingly, customs duty and penalty rightly levied.
