Check your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 6 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itPunch your phone number in the box below
I’II send an OTP on it.
I won’t confide your phone with anyone.
My Dear ,
Please write your reason against the objection raised in the box below.
I appreciate your effort.
May I request you to select one of the reasons for purging from below.
Disrespectful or rude towards a person or a group.
Promotes an undisclosed link or product or service.
Not seeking genuine answers .
Vulgar, Obscene, abusive etc..
Not a post on law or business.
Copied from other website or source and pasted here.
Has bad format, grammar, spelling so requires moderatation.
Thank you,
Yours sincerely,
Aaradhika, Thakurani's bestie
Do you think that the tax news in simple language are better? Can you write them in simple language? and then broadcast? Then Write them at shocks n mocks.
This case involved a dispute between a trustee (appellant) representing foreign bondholders and an Indian company (respondent) that defaulted on interest payments for convertible bonds issued to those bondholders. The key issue was whether the trust…
Login to write your newsThe case involves an assessee who was a shareholder of more than 10% in M/s. Star Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer treated certain amounts received by the assessee from the company as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Ta…
Login to write your newsThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeals, ruling that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the domestic law, including Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involved …
Login to write your newsThe Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Amit Aggarwal, accused in a Rs 700 crore forex remittance scam case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court found no evidence of 'proceeds of crime' being generated from the alleg…
Login to write your newsThe case involves Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee), which made payments for technical services to its US parent company. The dispute centered around the applicable withholding tax rate – whether it should be as per the In…
Login to write your newsThis case deals with the issue of whether the provisions of Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, which mandates a higher tax deduction rate for non-residents without a Permanent Account Number (PAN), can override the beneficial tax rates provided un…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner, an Indian company, challenged Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act which mandated a 20% tax deduction at source (TDS) on royalty payments made to non-residents without a Permanent Account Number (PAN). The court held that the India-Si…
Login to write your newsThe petitioner, an Indian company, challenged Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act which mandated a 20% tax deduction at source (TDS) on royalty payments made to non-residents without a Permanent Account Number (PAN). The court held that the India-Si…
Login to write your newsThe case involves an Indian company (the assessee) that made payments to non-resident entities for royalty and technical services. The assessee deducted tax at source (TDS) on these payments at the rates prescribed in the relevant Double Taxation Av…
Login to write your newsThis case involves an individual assessee, Arjun Malhotra, who sold 1,00,000 shares of NIIT to a company Glad Investment Pvt Ltd (GIPL) in 1997-98. The assessee claimed the sale consideration was Rs. 5 crores and claimed exemption under Section 54F.…
Login to write your newsThe case involves an appeal filed by a Biocon executive against the order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) restraining him from accessing the securities market and associating with listed companies for three months, and imposing …
Login to write your newsThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had ruled that certain lands owned by the assessees, although converted for non-agricultural purposes, were still considered agricultural lands and hence exempt from capital gains tax on their sale. The Reven…
Login to write your newsThe case involves an assessee who sold an immovable property in Devanahalli, Bangalore for Rs. 2.5 crores and claimed it as an agricultural land exempt from capital gains tax. The Income Tax Department disputed this claim, and the matter went through multiple rounds of litigation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ultimately ruled against the assessee, holding that the property could not be considered agricultural land and was liable for cap…
This case involved a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) that sold agricultural land and claimed exemption from capital gains tax under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The dispute centered on whether the land was situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limits, which would make it eligible for the exemption. The Income Tax Department challenged the exemption, but the Madras High Court upheld the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee, acceptin…
This case involves an appeal filed by an assessee (taxpayer) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2013-14. The key issue was whether the land sold by the assessee, an agricultural land located beyond 8 km from the nearest municipality, should be considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore subject to capital gains tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribun…
The case involves an income tax dispute over the sale of land by an assessee in Juchandra village. The revenue department argued that the land should be treated as a capital asset and subject to tax, as Juchandra village became part of the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation in 2009. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the land qualified as agricultural land and was exempt from tax. The revenue depa…
This case involves a writ petition filed by an individual assessee challenging the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had filed objections against the reasons for reopening, but the Assessing Officer dismissed the objections without properly examining them. The High Court quashed the order dismissing objections and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The petitioner, a domestic construction company, challenged the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was premature and not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax,Mar. 16, 2024The case involves a petition filed by an assessee challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment of income. The assessee argued that the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not satisfy the prerequisite of having sufficient information suggesting that income had escaped assessment. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the assessee is not entitled to the disclosure of evidence or material forming the…
The case involved a pharmaceutical company (petitioner) challenging notices issued by the Income Tax Department for reassessment of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The court quashed the notices, holding that the department failed to provide proper information as required under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act before initiating reassessment proceedings.
This group of 24 special civil applications challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which brought certain agricultural lands within the definition of "capital assets" for taxation of capital gains. The Gujarat High Court upheld the provision, ruling that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact it under Entry 82 of the Union List, and that the classification was not violative of Article 14…
The case involves an individual non-resident Indian assessee who sold agricultural lands and claimed exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act on the capital gains by purchasing new agricultural lands. The Income Tax Department denied the exemption, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made to the assessee's income.
Income Tax,Jul. 08, 2021Check your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 6 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itCheck your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 6 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itCheck your phone. I have messaged an OTP. It is a 5 digit number. Feed it in the box below
Do you want me to resend the OTP? Yes resend itThanks, for confirming your phone number.
You can change it in your profile.Are you a tax professional?
If yes, then you can earn
money through me.
download the mobile app
You have successfully created your diary. You can access it from 'Store/Your Stuff' section.
OK