Income Tax : The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd struck dow...
Income Tax : A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay pr...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribu...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad rules improper service of notice due to incorrect email address in the case of LMP Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT, highlig...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court restores Cool Mind Technologies' income tax appeal, emphasizing ITAT's obligation to consider appeals on merits ...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court ruled that once a TPO issues an order, the AO must pass an assessment order per Section 92CA(4) of the Income...
Income Tax : Discover the ITAT Delhi's ruling on Sakshi Fincap Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, addressing valuation discrepancies and retrospective amendmen...
Income Tax : Kerala High Court ruling emphasizes time limits in Income Tax Act assessments on remand. Detailed analysis of Joseph Michael vs. D...
ITAT Ahmedabad rules improper service of notice due to incorrect email address in the case of LMP Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT, highlighting procedural lapses and fairness.
Kerala High Court restores Cool Mind Technologies’ income tax appeal, emphasizing ITAT’s obligation to consider appeals on merits despite non-prosecution.
The Delhi High Court ruled that once a TPO issues an order, the AO must pass an assessment order per Section 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Discover the ITAT Delhi’s ruling on Sakshi Fincap Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, addressing valuation discrepancies and retrospective amendments under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
Kerala High Court ruling emphasizes time limits in Income Tax Act assessments on remand. Detailed analysis of Joseph Michael vs. DCIT case and its implications.
Department argued that it had not received the ITAT’s order through proper channels, thus absolving itself of responsibility. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that once the Department became aware of the ITAT’s order, it was obligated to comply within the stipulated time frame.
ITAT Mumbai held that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court rules ITAT should recall its order under Section 254 to correct a manifest error apparent on record in PCIT vs Fiserv India Pvt Ltd case. Details here.
Analysis of Bombay High Court’s ruling in CCIT(OSD)/PCIT Vs Bhupendra Champaklal Dalal regarding presumption of interest-free usage of funds when interest-free and interest-bearing funds are mixed
Delhi High Court rules that Income Tax Officer cannot withhold taxpayer’s deposited amount without framing final assessment order during stay period. Full judgment analysis.
