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 : Inter/Intra Circle Remittance Balance represented only internal transfer and reconciliation entries relating to assets and stock...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that transfer pricing analysis should focus on international transactions rather than entity-level profitability...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficien...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penal...
Income Tax : The ITAT Chennai held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since t...
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act made without invalidating evidences establishing identity/ creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transaction not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court quashes ITAT order that rectified its decision based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling (Checkmate Services), affirming Sec 254(2) limits to mistakes apparent from record.
ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
Delhi High Court rules in PCIT v. Amadeus India that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is warranted for AMP expenses, citing no ‘international transaction.’ The Court reiterates the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective from AY 2022-23, not retrospective, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Revenue argued that interest income from an Associated Enterprise (AE) should be taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate MMR by invoking Article 12(6) of the DTAA} (PE exclusion). The Tribunal upheld the 15% DTAA rate, confirming that since the assessee has no PE in India, the exclusionary clause 12(6) does not apply, and the interest is a debt-claim under Article 12(4).
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
The ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that once the capital gains deductions (Section 54EC/54F) are substantially allowed in the quantum appeal, there’s no concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that filing a belated return within Section 139(4) does not automatically invalidate a genuine deduction claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
Kolkata ITAT ruled in DCIT vs. Jupiter International that a ₹6.7 crore addition in an unabated tax year was illegal. Jurisdiction under Section 153A fails without seized, incriminating material, per SC precedent.
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty paid to private entities/ third parties towards breach of contract is the usual course of business and doesn’t involve payment of penalty for infraction of any law hence disallowance made under Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act is unwarranted.
