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 found that the JDA did not satisfy the statutory requirements of section 53A since possession was given only for limited development and no consideration was paid. Consequently, no transfer occurred under section 2(47), and capital gains could not be taxed for that year. The addition of ₹3,65,904 was directed to be deleted.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking provisions of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] is illegal and arbitrary since reasons to believe was not provided which is mandatory requirement for invoking Rule 86A.
Bombay High Court held that customs duty paid on goods lost or rendered unavailable before the time of clearance for home consumptions is liable to be refunded back in terms of section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Telangana High Court held that sale of undertaking as a going concern falls within the definition of a slump sale as set out in Section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act hence section 41(2) dealing with taxation of gains on sale of certain depreciable assets doesn’t apply.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application in the case of fake firms for passing on ineligible ITC by issuing fake GST bills not granted since twin conditions of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] not fulfilled.
Calcutta High Court held that the bail application of the petitioner involved in economic offence of more than Rs. 6200 crores rejected since there are 444 cases pending against the petitioner and also there are chances of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹16.97 Cr addition; Denmark-based LM Wind Power AS has no PE or business connection in India. Royalty taxable u/s 115A; penalty u/s 271AA unsustainable.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
Delhi High Court held that gains from legal transaction emanating from an illegal act would still be construed as “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Thus, profits from artificially elevated share price qualifies as proceeds of crime and hence attachment justifiable.
Gujarat High Court held that it would not be appropriate to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case involving possession and control of assets with corporate debtor during liquidation.
