Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): The Coram of Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), in the instant appeal filed
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ. disposed the petition and directed fresh adjudication as
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora JJ. disposed the petition and directed the respondents to
Unmissable Stories Sedition Law under scanner| All pending cases to be kept in abeyance; Centre/States urged not to register fresh cases till
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. allowed a petition which was filed challenging the impugned assessment order under Section 147 read with
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): The Coram of Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Narender Kumar Choudhary, Judicial Member, observed that under the
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court whereby
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ and R. K. Pattanaik J. dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (ITAT): Addressing the issue, of whether mere rejection of the claim by an Assessing Officer would ipso
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has modified the order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein
Most Read story of the Month Producing false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct; Dismissal of service justified in such cases “The question
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata: The Bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) held that the expenditure incurred
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (ITAT): The Coram of Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) examined the issue as
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., stayed the impugned order of Bombay High Court wherein
It is essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings.
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has held that the declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme
“…the statutory regime requiring that a thing be done in a certain manner, also implies (even in the absence of any express terms), that the other forms of doing it are impermissible.”
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and N.J. Jamdar, JJ., reiterated that notice under Section 148 of the Income
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) State commission disallows benefit of increase in the tariff based on the change in law provision; Tribunal
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that to determine State Monopoly for disallowance of