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 : The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required fo...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-...
Income Tax : Tribunal found the DRP’s order cryptic and lacking proper analysis on similarity of business activities between the assessee and...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactio...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had alread...
Delhi HC ruled that date of electronic upload of DRP directions on ITBA is date of receipt under Section 144C(13). AO’s final order passed a day late was held invalid, reaffirming that physical delivery is irrelevant once uploaded.
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
Karnataka HC ruled that an order giving effect to Tribunal directions passed after three-month limit under Section 153(5) is time-barred. Court upheld refund of ₹4.73 crore with interest under Sections 244A(1)(b) and 244A(1A).
in a colourful observation, the Tribunal compared Juniper’s interlinked trading and service activities to the egg-or-chicken story, holding entity-level TNMM appropriate and deleting the TP addition.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
Bombay High Court held that Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exceed mandate of Section 144C(13) or act contrary to Dispute Resolution Panel’s directions. It further ruled that any assessment completed beyond prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) is time-barred and invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows appeal in Somnath Bandopadhaya v. ITO, deleting ₹2.27 crore addition under Section 69A after verifying explained bank deposits.
The ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The ITAT ruled on a Transfer Pricing adjustment, holding that companies failing the 75% export filter (MAA Business Solutions) and the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter (WNS Global) must be excluded from the comparable set for ITES providers. The Tribunal directed a fresh re-computation of the arm’s length price (ALP) after applying correct filters, providing relief to the assessee.
Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA (7.5% presumptive tax on gross receipts), rejecting the Assessing Officer’s attempt to tax it under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
