The ITAT held that the royalty and FTS adjustment was excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the 1.9% rate accepted by the CBDT under the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement. It treated the APA principles as having persuasive value for determining the arm’s length price.
The ITAT held that the assessee’s exclusion of income based on the Place of Effective Management provisions involved a bona fide and debatable legal issue. It ruled that such a claim could not be treated as misreporting under Section 270A.
The article explains how ESOP taxation in unlisted companies occurs at both exercise and buyback stages. It highlights perquisite taxation, capital gains, and the importance of proper tax planning.
The ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax and similar State Government incentives were capital receipts because the schemes were intended to promote industrialisation, backward area development and employment, applying the Supreme Court’s purpose test.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 where the Assessing Officer has already conducted inquiries and applied his mind to the disputed issues.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income, attracting the bar under Section 80A(5).
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income as required under Section 139 and Section 80A(5).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant Foreign Tax Credit, observing that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural requirement and does not extinguish the substantive claim.
The High Court ruled that limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act begins on the day following receipt of the adjudication order, making the appeal eligible for consideration within the condonable period.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where the prescribed limitation period expires before the court closes for vacation. The Section 34 petition was therefore barred by limitation.
