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 ...
The ITAT Chennai held that ₹1.98 crore received for reduction in profit-sharing ratio in CRCL LLP was not goodwill or taxable income under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to make a newly purchased house habitable qualify as construction under Section 54 and are eligible for exemption.
Supreme Court held that informing an arrestee’s spouse or recording diary entries is no substitute for directly informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
ITAT clarified that transfer of case between officers in the same city does not require a new notice or hearing, reinforcing that procedural continuity under Section 127(4) ensures jurisdictional validity.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Delhi held that the ₹33.12 crore received by a co-founder to settle disputes and relinquish the right to sue for promised equity is a non-taxable capital receipt. The court ruled the payment wasn’t salary, business income, or capital gains, as the ‘right to sue’ isn’t a transferable capital asset.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer of an undertaking under a court-approved scheme cannot be characterised as a slum sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) hence provisions of section 50B not attracted.
ITAT directs the Assessing Officer to freshly adjudicate the tax case of Meenaz Anjum Dayatar to allow her to claim cost of acquisition and indexation against the sale of a crore property, which was incorrectly taxed as unexplained income under Section 68.
Delhi High Court held that seized amounts prima facie being proceeds of crime cannot be termed as income of accused as trial in PMLA case is yet to be conclude. Accordingly, it is erroneous to treat such amount as taxable income recoverable by Income Tax Department.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
