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 ITAT ruled that Pratt & Whitney’s overseas aircraft engine repair is not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as it fails the DTAA’s “make-available” test. The ₹242 Cr demand was deleted.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly assailing validity of final assessment order dated 30.06.2022 on the ground of limitation. It is contested that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) issued directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 23.03.2022, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed final assessment order on 23.06.2022.
ITAT Mumbai rules Avana Global’s freight and inland haulage income is exempt under Article 8 of the India-UAE DTAA, rejecting the S44B tax stand and following High Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi held that as per section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act final assessment order is to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which directions issued by DRP is received by AO. Assessment order passed beyond the period prescribed u/s. 144C(13) is time barred and liable to be quashed.
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal, ruling final assessment on non-resident Sneh Sharma void for AO’s failure to issue mandatory draft assessment order under Section 144C.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes a ₹10.10 Cr TP adjustment on AE consultancy fees to Virinchi Ltd, holding TPO cannot question commercial expediency of services when ALP is proven.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that receipts for online journal access are business income, not royalty. The court held that without a Permanent Establishment, a US company’s income is not taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Rs.7 lakh addition made to a non-resident Indian, ruling that his explanation for property investment was plausible, with funds sourced from NRE account withdrawals and jewelry sales.
Where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted international transactions at arm’s length without proposing any variation under Section 92CA(3), assessee did not qualify as an “eligible assessee” under Section 144C(15)(b).
AO was bound to follow the CBDT circular 19/2019 (F. NO.225/95/2019-ITA.II], DATED 14-82019 and the omission/dereliction was anathema to the basic feature of our Constitution “Rule of Law”, so his impugned action of passing the assessment order without quoting the DIN was held to be arbitrary exercise of power and therefore, invalid.
