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 revisionary proceedings under 263 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since related-party expenses were accepted without detailed verification. Accordingly, revision is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed deduction of royalty paid for use of a logo, noting that no specific defect was found in the supporting evidence. It held that the expenditure could not be disallowed merely on grounds of justification without examining its business purpose.
Tribunal ruled that share transactions cannot be treated as loans without proof of exceptional circumstances. Notional interest addition on such re-characterisation was deleted.
ITAT held that where interest-free funds exceed advances, a presumption arises that such advances are made from own funds. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as no nexus with borrowed funds was proven.
The Tribunal ruled that section 44ADA applies only to specified professions and cannot be invoked for business income covered under section 44AD. Arbitrary substitution of a higher rate by the AO was held unsustainable.
Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing deductions under sections 10B and 80-IB, following prior coordinate-bench rulings; AO must apply the earlier directions on remand. Key takeaway: common corporate overheads and income were to be apportioned to units for deduction-computation as previously directed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) as it was based solely on digital data found from a third party. It reiterated that suspicion or extrapolation without direct evidence cannot sustain tax additions.
The Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal examined suspicion surrounding a large cash advance for property. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence, and once the transaction is substantiated, section 68 addition must be deleted.
The addition on shares contributed to a family trust was deleted as the trust was exclusively for the benefit of relatives. Section 56(2)(x) does not apply where the statutory exemption conditions are satisfied.
