Summarizes how ECBs are regulated under FEMA and RBI rules, highlighting the proposed market-driven 2025 framework and its impact on borrowers.
Breaks down eligibility, timelines, and recent caps, clarifying how Section 54 relief is granted and when it can be withdrawn.
Explains the step-by-step TP study process and highlights common documentation, data, and benchmarking challenges, along with what the analysis ultimately held regarding verification requirements.
The Tribunal noted conflicting positions regarding the evidence submitted by the assessee in support of agricultural income. Since the assessment appeared incomplete and lacked thorough verification, the case was returned to the AO. The ruling directs a fair reassessment and deletion of the addition if documentary proof is found satisfactory.
The Tribunal applied long-standing rulings invalidating the intensity and BLT approaches for AMP benchmarking, deleting both substantive and protective adjustments. The decision underscores that such methods lack statutory support.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a co-purchaser of property is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA if their individual share is below ₹50 lakh, even if total consideration exceeds the limit. The Tribunal quashed both AO and CIT(A) orders.
The Tribunal held that use of surplus for land purchase in the society’s name reflects genuine educational intent. It rejected the view that recurring surplus amounts to profit motive and found the earlier inquiry incomplete. The application under Section 10(23C)(vi) was remanded for proper evaluation.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that CAD software with a short lifecycle and frequent upgrades qualifies as revenue expenditure, enabling full Section 80IC deduction. AO and CIT(A) orders were set aside.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that imported Chinese Coke Breeze used for metallurgical purpose only and not for any other purpose like non-metal extraction, etc. would be entitled to benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dt.17.03.2012. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in refusing to consider the USAID–AE agreement, which directly established the back-to-back cost-plus-6% model. It ruled that such crucial evidence cannot be dismissed on a procedural technicality and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
