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...
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by a US company for software licensing and support services cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, such income was classified as business profits and held non-taxable under the India-USA DTAA.
The Tribunal ruled that the lease rentals received by Irish residents were exempt from tax in India under Article 8 of the treaty, following precedent on operating leases. The ruling affirms that the DTAA explicitly covers the rental of aircraft (including helicopters) in international traffic.
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.
