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 High Court held that since AY 2012-13 falls beyond the block of ten years that are required to be reckoned from the end of t...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in the name of non-existent entity (amal...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi quashes final assessment order passed without a mandatory draft order under Section 144C(1), deeming it void from the b...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a GST intimation under section 143(1) is invalid if not served within the prescribed time limits to the ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that services rendered under Intra Group Service Agreement do not make available technical knowledge and hence wou...
ITAT Delhi held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of transaction of payment of royalty is set aside and Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] is directed to accept the parameters of determination of compensation as accepted in Advance Pricing Agreement [APA].
Rajasthan High Court held that, in terms of section 151A of the Income Tax Act, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [JAO] doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notices u/s. 148 are liable to be quashed.
It was a case where the statutory procedure mandated in section 144C had been attempted to be by passed by merely mentioning the name of the assessee as the amalgamated entity with its former name and the name of amalgamating company.
GAIL India’s ITAT Delhi appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Learn about the proceedings and decision details.
Gujarat High Court held that in the absence of new material facts brought on record by the Revenue reopening of assessment beyond the period of 4 years is found to be not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Telangana HC overturns CBDT’s refusal to reassess Satyam’s tax after fraud, citing genuine hardship and unlawful tax collection.
ITAT Chennai rules CSR donations to PM Relief Fund qualify for 80G deduction, overturning AO’s decision. Read key judicial precedents and tax law insights.
Madras High Court dismisses Siva Industries’ appeal due to a 2139-day delay, citing lack of diligence and bonafide reasons. Key judicial precedents considered.
It was held that transactions and FAR of assessee were similar to AY 2021-22 and as per the records brought to our notice, there was no change in the activities carried out by assessee in the current assessment year and subsequent assessment years.
The US Transactions were subject to the Mutual Agreement Procedure between the competent authorities of US and India under Article 27 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
