DCIT (ITAT Delhi) revolves around the interpretation of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act and the eligibility for exemption despite the start of construction of a new house before the sale of the old ...

In the midst of election fervor, Arjuna seeks guidance from Krishna on choosing the right insurance policy, akin to selecting the right candidate for long-term security. Krishna’s insights shed light ...

The appeal is against the dismissal of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeal) Customs and Central Excise Lucknow. The ...

1. a) The Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming reopening of case u/s 148 when on the same facts, circumstances and material, the assessment was made u/s 143 (3) and the claim of the appellant was ...

The ITAT also relied on precedent to emphasize that the stipulation for payment of tax before filing the first appeal is directory and not mandatory. If the appeal is filed without payment of tax but ...

The appellant claimed STCG on the sale of derivatives taxable at 30% and also claimed STCL taxable at 15%. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the set-off, stating that STCG on derivatives was in ...

Citing precedent cases, the ITAT emphasized that when sales proceeds were already assessed as business income, adding the same amount as unexplained cash credits would lead to double taxation.

“1. The Dispute Resolution Panel erred in not entertaining the objections filed by the Appellant in Form No. 35A.

Registrar of Companies in Chennai has imposed penalties on Hermes I Tickets Private Limited and its directors for breaching Section 134(5)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. The violation pertains to the ...

Registrar of Companies & Adjudicating Officer, Seema Rath, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on HOLITECH and Rs. 50,000 on each defaulting director. The company is instructed to remit the penalty ...

The Noticee shall pay the amount of penalty by way of Demand Draft in favour of “Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, payable at Delhi, within 90 days receipt of this ...

The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the appellant had under-reported income, resulting in the imposition of a penalty. However, the appellant contended that the filing of the revised return was ...