Income Tax : Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of th...
Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : Despite a significant gap between the agreement and registration dates, ITAT granted relief under the first and second provisos to...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate cause...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Se...
The ITAT ruled that taxing section 28 interest as income from other sources through rectification was invalid. Where the issue is debatable and supported by binding precedent, section 154 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal held that cash gifts received from relatives covered under section 56(2)(vii) cannot be taxed as unexplained credits. Once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved, section 68 has no application.
The issue was whether retaining both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice renders the penalty void. The Tribunal ruled that failure to strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the proceedings. Penalties must be founded on precise allegations.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority has a statutory duty to decide grounds on merits and cannot dismiss them as not adjudicated for want of details. Orders violating sections 250(6) and 251(1) were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court upheld deletion of a major addition, holding that valuation under Section 56 must follow the prescribed rles and not unrelated transaction prices.
Authorities found the land had been sold decades earlier and the MOU acknowledged no possession or rights. The Tribunal affirmed taxation under section 56. The ruling clarifies that an MOU cannot convert non-rights into capital receipts.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of enhanced compensation and interest under land acquisition after insertion of section 56(2)(viii). The ruling confirms that such receipts are taxable despite earlier judicial views.
The judgment reiterates that valuation must comply with statutory rules and cannot hinge on a single third-party transaction. Reassessment contrary to this principle was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that additions made on issues beyond limited scrutiny were without authority since proper conversion to complete scrutiny was not followed. The key takeaway is that violating CBDT instructions renders the entire assessment void.
Where compensation and interest are deposited under judicial custody due to a pending appeal, no real income accrues. The Tribunal ruled that taxing such MACT interest is impermissible until actual receipt.
