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...
ITAT Mumbai held that the issue of allowance of sales promotion expenses (including freebies) in the hands of Appellant was debatable and it cannot be said that allowance of deduction of sales promotion expenses by AO resulting in a mistake apparent on record. Thus, in absence of mistake apparent on record, order passed u/s 154 liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the bank guarantee rates cannot be considered for benchmarking corporate guarantee fees, therefore benchmarking of AO and DRP is also incorrect. It depends on creditworthiness of parties and benefit arising out of the same in the hands of the parties to the transaction.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT observed that since, the assessee is found to be functionally comparable to the business auxiliary service providers, therefore it is established that the assessee has undertaken limited functions and risk in the merchanting trades segment and earns a fixed profit margin.
ITAT Bangalore held that the loss arising in eligible SEZ-STPI undertakings are not required to be adjusted against the profits arising from other SEZ-STPI undertakings and the said loss can be adjusted against profits arising from non-SEZ-non-STPI units.
ITAT Mumbai held that the moment the order of the TPO is barred by limitation and quashed the assessee ceases to be an eligible assessee. Hence the time limit for completion of the assessment reverts back to 21months. Final assessment order passed after that is barred by limitation.
ITAT Mumbai held that as the assessee ceases to be an ‘eligible assessee’ under provisions of section 144C of the Income Tax Act, extended time limit for assessment is not available to AO. Accordingly, order of TPO is barred by limitation.
ITAT Chennai held that payment of rental or ocean freight for ships is covered by Article 8 of India-Korea DTAA. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS and therefore, disallowance invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that as per Article 8 of India–Singapore DTAA receipts from operation of ships and aircrafts in international traffic is taxable in the country of residence of the recipient. Therefore, amounts received by the assessee from operation of ships in international traffic would be exempt.
ITAT Amritsar held that transfer of REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) is capital in nature and not liable to tax under business income as the income is offshoot from environmental concern not from offshoot of business concern.
ITAT Bangalore held that pre-clinical laboratory services rendered by the assessee (non-resident) to its customers in India would not be chargeable to tax in India as the technical services rendered by the affiliates do not “make available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process while preparing these reports for their, Indian customers/ clients.
