Mumbai, addressed Apple India Private Limited’s application for renewing an earlier advance ruling on the classification of ...

Bombay High Court held that exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not ...

CAAR Mumbai noted that the case bore strong similarities to the ruling by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate ...

Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) examined whether the transportation services provided by the applicant, Tvl.

No tax is required to be deducted at source under Sec. 195, if the amount paid by resident Indian end-users to non-resident, ...

ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessment order passed u/s. 143 (3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not ...

Gujarat High Court held that voluntary addition offered during hearing of the application u/s. 245D (4) cannot be equated with revision of application of disclosure made u/s. 245C (1) and hence no ...

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, against the order dated 19.03.2024, passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’ for short), Mumbai u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ...

However, CAAR Mumbai examined the technical specifications and observed that similar classification issues had already been addressed in prior rulings. The authority referred to the case of M/s.

The court referred to multiple precedents that reinforced the necessity of these procedural elements. In V. Bhanoji Row Vs.

Delhi High Court dismissed the writ as no question of law arises since ITAT duly confirmed addition by treating share application money as sham transaction. Accordingly, writ disposed of.

Citing legal provisions, CAAR Mumbai upheld its decision to reject the application, emphasizing that a ruling on the matter was already under judicial review. The case underscores the limitations of ...