Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains when interest is payable for delayed return filing, advance tax defaults, deferment of instalme...
Income Tax : Understand how interest under the Income Tax Act is calculated, including Sections 234A–234D, 244A, and Rule 119A mechanics for ...
Income Tax : Due to any reason, in case the income tax department makes an excess refund to the taxpayer. Such taxpayer will have to return the...
Income Tax : Section 234D in Income Tax Act, 1961 was introduced in the act to cover those situations where the refund was issued to the assess...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of the TP adjustment for a debt-free branch, partly allowed the Revenue's appeal on Section 234D, and d...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot quashed Section 147 reassessment as alleged escaped income of Rs. 34.30 lakh was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold under...
Income Tax : ITAT held interest from head office and overseas branches is not taxable as payment to self, while interest from overseas banks al...
Income Tax : Transfer pricing principles dictate that a captive, risk-mitigated service provider could not be benchmarked against full-fledged,...
Income Tax : The ITAT Ahmedabad held that royalty payments should continue to be benchmarked under TNMM by following earlier decisions in the a...
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from hiring conference and auditorium facilities constituted business income under Section 11(4A) as the charitable society actively provided commercial facilities beyond passive letting. The assessee’s appeals were dismissed.
The Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 234D applies to excess income tax refunds issued before June 1, 2003, by following its earlier binding decision. The ITAT order was set aside and the Revenue’s appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Department explains when interest is payable for delayed return filing, advance tax defaults, deferment of instalments, and excess refunds. The FAQs also clarify interest rates, calculation methods, timelines, and important statutory exceptions.
ITAT Delhi held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made where investments yielding exempt income were financed from the assessee’s own funds rather than borrowed funds.
The Mumbai ITAT held that no separate addition for alleged bogus purchases was warranted where contract receipts were accepted, substantial gross profit had already been disclosed, and there was no evidence of cash being returned to the assessee.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure cannot be sustained when audited books are accepted and no specific defects or bogus expenses are identified. The Tribunal deleted the entire 10% estimated addition.
The ITAT held that transfer pricing adjustment was not justified where the foreign LLC’s income was already offered to tax in India by the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the TP addition, finding no profit shifting or tax erosion.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only ₹5 lakh, far below the ₹50 lakh requirement under Section 149(1)(b). As a result, the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed.
