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...
The issue was whether final DRP-based assessments passed beyond statutory timelines are valid. The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 144C must be read with Section 153, rendering delayed final orders void.
The issue was whether DRP cases escape the outer limitation under section 153. The Tribunal held that section 153 continues to apply and quashed the assessment as time-barred.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
The Tribunal held that a manufacturing company failing the 75% trading turnover filter applied by the TPO cannot be retained as a comparable. Dilution of the filter by the DRP only to accommodate one entity was found impermissible, leading to deletion of the comparable.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
The Tribunal examined whether a branch office treated as a permanent establishment can deduct head-office cost reimbursements. ITAT held that full cost deduction is mandatory so that only profits attributable to the PE are taxed under Article 7.
The Tribunal ruled that a draft assessment order is the statutory trigger for DRP proceedings. Absence of a valid draft order against an existing entity vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the transfer pricing adjustment was based on unexplained margin calculations. A fresh working was directed to ensure accurate benchmarking of international transactions.
The issue was whether a DRP-based assessment passed after the statutory period survives. The Tribunal held the delay fatal and quashed the assessment in entirety.
ITAT Hyderabad held that final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by AO beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
