Punjab & Haryana High Court rules interest on land acquisition compensation is income from other sources, not capital gains, post-2010 IT Act amendments.
Delhi High Court upholds ITAT ruling: Cloud service subscription payments to foreign firms are not taxable as royalty under DTAA or Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court allows Blackmelon Advance Technology Co. to appeal a Rs. 54 lakh GST demand despite missed deadlines, citing lack of SCN knowledge.
Allahabad High Court orders release of mustard seeds consignment on deposit of tax and penalty, without ruling on the merits of the GST detention.
Allahabad High Court overturns penalty on Nokia Solutions for incomplete e-way bill. Court rules mere procedural lapse without tax evasion intent doesn’t warrant penalty, citing matching invoices and relevant judicial precedents. Learn more about the crucial verdict.
Karnataka High Court held that recovering amount in excess of 20% of total demand during pendency of appellate proceeding is impermissible in law. Accordingly, department directed to refund entire amount in excess of 20% with interest.
Delhi High Court held that notice issued u/s. 148 and assessment order thereon is liable to be set aside as sanction of issuance of notice not granted by authority specified under section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of asset allowed and demand set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that loss incurred on account of trading in gold derivatives being hedging transaction and was excluded from the definition of speculative transaction in terms of section 43(5)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – DMI Alternatives Private Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 27thJuly, 2024 and consequential order dated 30th January, 2025.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act are application only when there is transfer of any asset to the partners account from the firm. Accordingly, section 45(4) cannot be invoked in case of incremental capital brought in by the new partner.
