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 : 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...
Income Tax : The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
Income Tax : The case examined whether share premium could be taxed without proof of unaccounted funds. The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vi...
ITAT Kolkata held that when date of agreement and date of registration are not same, then, stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be considered. Accordingly, since difference is less than 10%, hence addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the entire proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated and completed by the PCIT within a period of only 12 days without pointing out reason for lack of enquiry unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back.
Detailed analysis of DCIT vs Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt Ltd case by ITAT Chennai regarding taxation of bonus shares under Income Tax Act. Understand ITAT’s ruling and implications.
ITAT Delhi rules Section 56(2)(vii) inapplicable to non-residents, deleting Rs. 9.31 Cr addition for APL Logistics Vascor Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Read full order and analysis.
Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, highlighting the choice of valuation method with the assessee.
Search warrant is issued regarding premises and not necessarily regarding an assessee, and a common search warrant and panchnama issued against multiple assesses operating from the same premises are justifiable.
Detailed analysis of Chandarani N. Goyal Vs ITO case where Mumbai ITAT ruled that money received as a security deposit, if refunded, is not taxable under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
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 examines the tax implications and regulatory considerations under the Indian Income Tax Act associated with this transaction.
Explore ITAT Chennai’s ruling in Smt. Chandrasekaran Valarmathi vs. ITO case. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act won’t apply when property is purchased for business use of a partnership firm.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act rightly sustained as no supporting documents submitted.
