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...
The issue was whether a DRP-based assessment passed after the statutory period survives. The Tribunal held the delay fatal and quashed the assessment in entirety.
ITAT Hyderabad held that final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by AO beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that foreign company receiving consideration for offshore supply of equipment, plant, designs and drawings is not taxable in India since entire transaction has taken place outside India.
High Court held that a final assessment order passed without awaiting DRP directions violates section 144C. Such non-compliance rendered the assessment order non est and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal examined whether an allotment letter fixing consideration could qualify as an agreement under section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that where part payment is made by cheque, stamp duty value on the allotment date must be adopted.
The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance where interest-free funds were higher than tax-free investments. It reaffirmed that no interest disallowance arises in such circumstances.
The issue was whether interest-free loans to group entities warranted transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that since business had not commenced and no income was earned, the adjustment was unsustainable.
The core issue was whether an assessment can survive when DRP directions are disregarded. The Tribunal held that failure to follow binding DRP instructions renders the assessment void ab initio.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
