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 acknowledged that ECB interest was fixed and consistently accepted in earlier years but adopted a marginally revised rate after the assessee’s voluntary settlement to close the dispute.
ITAT Chandigarh held that passing of final assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act without issuing draft assessment orders under section 144C of the Income Tax Act is untenable. Accordingly, final assessment order u/s. 153A is quashed.
The Delhi High Court held that a draft assessment order issued against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid. Such proceedings suffer from a substantive jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The dispute involved taxing a foreign investment as unexplained income. The Tribunal clarified that Section 69 applies only where investments are not recorded in books or the source remains unexplained.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The issue was whether satellite transmission fees constitute royalty in India. The Tribunal held that Article 12 of the DTAA governs and the receipts are not royalty. Domestic law amendments cannot override the treaty.
The Tribunal held that a transfer pricing order passed beyond statutory limitation is non est in law. As a result, the assessee ceased to be an eligible assessee under section 144C, making the final assessment beyond limitation and void.
The issue was whether the final order was passed within the statutory timeline after DRP directions. The Tribunal held that delay beyond one month under section 144C(13) renders the order void.
