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 ...
Delhi High Court held that on account of lack of facts and material particulars, the relief as sought by the petitioner not granted. Concluded that if material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible.
Delhi High Court held that as discrepancies in sales figures as well as physical stock not explained, the assessing authority took a fair view in enhancing sales by 10% of net GTO after deducting the stock transfer figure of GTO. Accordingly, levy of tax with interest confirmed.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received by the appellant from VMI in terms of the Settlement Agreement was consideration for transfer of goodwill and the same is taxable under Capital Gains and cannot be treated as business income.
Bombay High Court held that application of Enforcement Directorate u/s. 4 read with Section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 praying that the Applicant (Mehul Choksi) be declared as a fugitive economic offender is acceptable as requirement of Section 4 duly complied.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 cannot be inclined for lack of due diligence on the part of the employee of CFS especially when the department did not find anything wrong when compared to employees of other CFS.
CESTAT Mumbai held the penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as appellant being custodian of Container Freight Station not only failed to fulfil the conditions and to abide by the responsibilities reposed on them as Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) by assisting in illegal removal of seized red sanders.
NCLT Delhi held that resolution plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant which was approved by CoC cannot be interfered by Adjudicating Authority. Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to analyse or evaluate commercial decision of CoC.
In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 28.07.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Sale/ conversion of business of assessee-firm as a going concern to company for consideration of paid up share capital does not amount to transfer liable to tax as capital gains.
