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 : The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasion...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that the provisioning for Asset Reconstruction Cost qualified the prescriptions of AS 29 and the assessee wa...
Income Tax : Patna High Court held that Faceless Assessment Procedure as prescribed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act is duly followed a...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of transaction of payment of royalty is set aside and Transfer Pricing...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court held that, in terms of section 151A of the Income Tax Act, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [JAO] doesn’t h...
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
Delhi High Court held that the provisioning for Asset Reconstruction Cost qualified the prescriptions of AS 29 and the assessee was thus justified in accounting for the same. Thus, that question is answered in favour of assessee.
Patna High Court held that Faceless Assessment Procedure as prescribed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act is duly followed and in course of faceless assessment at every stage approval from competent authorities have been obtained.
ITAT Delhi held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of transaction of payment of royalty is set aside and Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] is directed to accept the parameters of determination of compensation as accepted in Advance Pricing Agreement [APA].
Rajasthan High Court held that, in terms of section 151A of the Income Tax Act, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [JAO] doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notices u/s. 148 are liable to be quashed.
It was a case where the statutory procedure mandated in section 144C had been attempted to be by passed by merely mentioning the name of the assessee as the amalgamated entity with its former name and the name of amalgamating company.
GAIL India’s ITAT Delhi appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Learn about the proceedings and decision details.
Gujarat High Court held that in the absence of new material facts brought on record by the Revenue reopening of assessment beyond the period of 4 years is found to be not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Telangana HC overturns CBDT’s refusal to reassess Satyam’s tax after fraud, citing genuine hardship and unlawful tax collection.
ITAT Chennai rules CSR donations to PM Relief Fund qualify for 80G deduction, overturning AO’s decision. Read key judicial precedents and tax law insights.
