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 : The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) pe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues can...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a share transfer without consideration constituted taxable capital gains. The Tribunal held that genuine fam...
Income Tax : The case examined whether failure to consider a binding tribunal precedent constitutes an error. The ITAT held that such non-consi...
Income Tax : ITAT ruled that interest disallowance cannot be made when sufficient interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that a...
The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) permits only correction of apparent errors, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s application.
The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues cannot be adjusted at the processing stage, resulting in relief to the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural boundaries.
The issue was whether a share transfer without consideration constituted taxable capital gains. The Tribunal held that genuine family realignment is not taxable.
The case examined whether failure to consider a binding tribunal precedent constitutes an error. The ITAT held that such non-consideration is a mistake apparent on record and recalled the issue for fresh adjudication.
ITAT ruled that interest disallowance cannot be made when sufficient interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that availability of own funds overrides assumptions of borrowed fund usage.
The case addressed whether delayed filing of Form 10-IC invalidates a claim under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal held that the delay was procedural and directed allowance of the concessional tax rate.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
Expenses incurred for a proposed business project later abandoned were allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that such costs remain deductible if incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The issue concerned failure to follow tribunal remand directions on comparables. The ruling held that such non-compliance caused procedural irregularity, leading to exclusion of certain comparables and recomputation of ALP.
