Income Tax : Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Sectio...
Income Tax : Taxpayers face challenges when assessment orders don’t reflect DRP directions. Misalignments lead to disputes, rectification iss...
Income Tax : The legal community awaits the Supreme Court decision on the Roca Bathroom case, addressing timelines for transfer pricing assessm...
Income Tax : Discover how Section 44C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, governs the deduction of head office expenses for non-resident businesses in...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countr...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies automatically when stamp value exceeds purchase price. However, it remanded t...
Income Tax : While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revi...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that the assessee was not questioned on stamp duty valuation and old payment sources. It remanded the case for ...
Income Tax : The tribunal examined whether a final assessment passed after the statutory time limit was valid. It held that assessments beyond ...
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that section 56(2)(vii)(b) applies automatically when stamp value exceeds purchase price. However, it remanded the matter for DVO valuation to ensure fair determination of market value.
While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revive the matter depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not questioned on stamp duty valuation and old payment sources. It remanded the case for fresh assessment with directions to consider explanations afresh.
The tribunal examined whether a final assessment passed after the statutory time limit was valid. It held that assessments beyond Section 153 timelines are void, even when issued under the DRP framework.
The issue was whether a final assessment under the DRP framework can be passed beyond statutory timelines. The Tribunal held that orders exceeding Section 153 limits are void, reaffirming strict adherence to limitation.
ITAT Delhi held that final assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation for passing the order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 153 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the same is barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that section 144C cannot be invoked where the TPO proposes no income variation. As the assessee was not an eligible assessee, the assessment was quashed as without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether final assessment orders passed after DRP directions were barred by limitation under section 144C read with section 153. The Tribunal held that such orders passed beyond the statutory time limit are without jurisdiction and must be quashed.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed without giving effect to binding DRP directions violates section 144C. Such an order is void ab initio and cannot be sustained once the statutory time limit has expired.
