Disallowance under Section 14A of Income TAx Act, 1961
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore held that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made where the assessee did not earn exemp...
Income Tax : The issue was whether exempt dividend income could be taxed by overriding Rule 8D. The ITAT held that additions beyond the Section...
Income Tax : The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when sufficient interest-free own funds are available,...
Income Tax : The ruling confirms that notional disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profits under the MAT regim...
Income Tax : Section 14A disallows expenses related to tax-exempt income. Rule 8D provides the formula, ensuring only taxable-income-related ex...
Income Tax : Bombay Chartered Accountants' Society has made a Representation on 'Suggestions for Amendments in the Income Tax Act', on 24th May...
Income Tax : The mechanical disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is also being added to the book profit by the AO irrespective of the fact whethe...
Income Tax : 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF IND-AS AND THEIR IMPACT ON TAXABLE INCOME IND-AS (Indian version of IFRS) accounting standards are being impl...
Income Tax : Amendments to Section 14A to provide that (i) dividend received after suffering dividend-distribution tax and share income from fi...
Income Tax : As earlier intimated to you, Writ Petition bearing No. 50 of 2010 (Indian Exporters Grievances Forum & Other vs. CIT) challenging ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Pune upheld the deduction under Section 10AA after finding that the Assessing Officer had not established that the SEZ un...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) could not apply in the absence of any finding by the competent authority ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA gives the assessee the exclusive option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares. While...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that ESOP discount is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1), observing that the pendency of an SLP again...
Income Tax : Expenditure of ₹4.49 crore incurred on maintenance dredging for removal of natural siltation and restoration of the existing ope...
Income Tax : 2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts,...
Income Tax : Circular No. 5/2014-Income Tax Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of its powers under section 119 of the Act hereby clari...
Income Tax : INCOME TAX NOTIFICATION NO-45/2008, DT: March 24, 2008 Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not incl...
Income Tax : The provisions of Sections 144-A and 144-B of the Income-tax Act have come into force with effect from 1st January 1976. Instructi...
The Tribunal held that amalgamation approved by the High Court cannot be treated as a sham or business reconstruction. Deduction under Section 80IC was upheld as the eligible unit continued unchanged.
The issue was whether an Assessing Officer can travel beyond limited scrutiny without mandatory approval. The Tribunal held that such action violates binding CBDT Instructions and renders the assessment void from inception
The Tribunal held that while section 14A applies to partnership investments, disallowance cannot exceed the amount excluded from total income. Excess Rule 8D disallowance was therefore restricted to the partnership loss.
The ITAT held that where investments are fully backed by substantial own funds and a rational suo-motu disallowance is made, Rule 8D cannot be mechanically invoked. The Revenue’s attempt to make an additional disallowance was rejected.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT disagrees with the Assessing Officer’s view. Once enquiries are made and explanations accepted, substitution of opinion is impermissible.
The issue concerned an upward transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee fees charged to AEs. The Tribunal upheld the fee at 0.25% as arm’s length, citing prior ITAT precedents. The takeaway: valid comparable data and indemnification protect against such adjustments.
Tribunal confirmed that transfer of passive infrastructure assets is genuine and qualifies as a gift under section 47(iii), rejecting revenue’s claim of tax avoidance.
Revenue counted limitation from the third-party search date, while the assessee argued it should start from document handover. ITAT Delhi agreed, holding the assessment outside the six-year period, thereby voiding it.
ITAT Hyderabad held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable since AO has taken plausible view. Accordingly, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial hence revision order quashed.
The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 10,00,059/- as the addition was based solely on uncorroborated third-party information. No primary evidence linked the assessee to the alleged accommodation entries.
