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 ...
The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without corroborative evidence. It ruled that no addition can survive merely on third-party material lacking proof of actual cash movement.
The Tribunal ruled that the word purchase under Section 54 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation. Genuine investment in a residential property within the prescribed period can qualify for exemption even without a registered conveyance deed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly verify the genuineness of a cancelled property sale transaction before accepting the assessee’s claim of no capital gains. It ruled that lack of inquiry justified revision under Section 263.
The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed under Section 47(iv) were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the parent company did not hold the entire share capital through itself or nominees.
ITAT Hyderabad held that rural agricultural land situated beyond 8 kilometres from municipal limits cannot be taxed as a capital asset merely because the purchaser later used it for commercial plotting. The Tribunal ruled that future use by the buyer does not alter the land’s character in the seller’s hands.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains from older development agreements must be taxed under the law applicable in the year of transfer.
The Mumbai ITAT held that exemption under Section 54F has to be given effect before applying set-off provisions under Section 70(3). The assessee was allowed to carry forward long-term capital loss separately.
Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
Mumbai ITAT upheld ₹10.76 crore addition after rejecting selective identification of physical shares for capital gains computation. The Tribunal termed the arrangement a “colourable device” to suppress taxable gains.
High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capital gains because no ascertainable cost of acquisition existed, making computation provisions unworkable.
