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...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained due to wide fluctuation in value of share within a period of less than 5 months and that too within same financial year without accurate explanation.
Kerala High Court held that considering merits of the matter while deciding application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns not justified.
ITAT Lucknow ruled that additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are unsustainable without a valuation officer’s reference, directing deletion of ₹2.14 crore addition.
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.
