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 tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Section 153.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed after the expiry of Section 153 is invalid, even if it follows DRP directions. The is that limitation under Section 153 remains mandatory and cannot be bypassed through the DRP route.
The Tribunal ruled that payments for IPL and MPLS bandwidth services do not constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty, following consistent earlier rulings.
Tribunal confirmed that transfer of passive infrastructure assets is genuine and qualifies as a gift under section 47(iii), rejecting revenue’s claim of tax avoidance.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that section 144C cannot override outer time limits under section 153. Assessments passed beyond statutory deadlines are void, reinforcing strict compliance with limitation periods.
The ITAT invalidated an assessment for AY 2008-09 after the AO failed to issue a mandatory draft order under section 144C during remand proceedings, highlighting procedural compliance in transfer pricing cases.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) passed beyond statutory time limits is invalid. The ruling reinforces that the outer limit under section 153 cannot be extended, emphasizing strict compliance with limitation provisions.
ITAT Bangalore allowed deduction of ₹55.4 crore ESOP expenses under section 37, holding it as employee compensation cost. ESOP costs may be deductible even if cross-charged from parent company.
