Income Tax : Budget 2026 introduces sweeping retrospective amendments affecting limitation, reassessment jurisdiction, DIN validity, and TPO ti...
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 Mumbai quashed reassessment after finding no Section 143(2) notice and that the AO issued a final order disguised as a draft ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that goodwill arising on amalgamation qualifies as a depreciable intangible asset. It also deleted the TP adjustment on ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that documentary evidence established receipt of intra-group administrative support services and that the 5% marku...
Income Tax : ITAT excluded EDCIL, Just Dial, Info Edge and India Exposition Mart as transfer pricing comparables due to functional differences ...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld taxation of IPS and CEV subsidies following the Section 2(24) amendment, while partly allowing the appeal on other iss...
Coca Cola India Inc. Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that final assessment order passed beyond period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and hence set aside. Facts: The present adjudication involves a batch of six appeals pertaining to the same […]
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
The issue was whether final DRP-based assessments passed beyond statutory timelines are valid. The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 144C must be read with Section 153, rendering delayed final orders void.
The issue was whether DRP cases escape the outer limitation under section 153. The Tribunal held that section 153 continues to apply and quashed the assessment as time-barred.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
The Tribunal held that a manufacturing company failing the 75% trading turnover filter applied by the TPO cannot be retained as a comparable. Dilution of the filter by the DRP only to accommodate one entity was found impermissible, leading to deletion of the comparable.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
The Tribunal examined whether a branch office treated as a permanent establishment can deduct head-office cost reimbursements. ITAT held that full cost deduction is mandatory so that only profits attributable to the PE are taxed under Article 7.
The Tribunal ruled that a draft assessment order is the statutory trigger for DRP proceedings. Absence of a valid draft order against an existing entity vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the transfer pricing adjustment was based on unexplained margin calculations. A fresh working was directed to ensure accurate benchmarking of international transactions.
