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 High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that foreign company receiving consideration for offshore supply of equipment, plant, designs and drawings is not taxable in India since entire transaction has taken place outside India.
High Court held that a final assessment order passed without awaiting DRP directions violates section 144C. Such non-compliance rendered the assessment order non est and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal examined whether an allotment letter fixing consideration could qualify as an agreement under section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that where part payment is made by cheque, stamp duty value on the allotment date must be adopted.
The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance where interest-free funds were higher than tax-free investments. It reaffirmed that no interest disallowance arises in such circumstances.
The issue was whether interest-free loans to group entities warranted transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that since business had not commenced and no income was earned, the adjustment was unsustainable.
The core issue was whether an assessment can survive when DRP directions are disregarded. The Tribunal held that failure to follow binding DRP instructions renders the assessment void ab initio.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid since the section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16, making it barred by limitation under settled Supreme Court law.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 70 of the Income Tax Act allows first setting off the short term capital loss against the non STT gains taxable at thirty percent, and then applying the balance against the STT gains taxable at fifteen percent. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.
