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 Mumbai held that disallowance computed under Section 14A cannot be directly added while computing book profits under Section ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the li...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional in...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) pe...
ITAT Delhi held that as per section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act final assessment order is to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which directions issued by DRP is received by AO. Assessment order passed beyond the period prescribed u/s. 144C(13) is time barred and liable to be quashed.
AO was bound to follow the CBDT circular 19/2019 (F. NO.225/95/2019-ITA.II], DATED 14-82019 and the omission/dereliction was anathema to the basic feature of our Constitution “Rule of Law”, so his impugned action of passing the assessment order without quoting the DIN was held to be arbitrary exercise of power and therefore, invalid.
ITAT Pune held that excess sugarcane price paid to the members and sale of sugarcane at concessional rate needs fresh consideration and accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of AO.
Cash deposits made by assessee during the demonetization period were explained as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and household savings, and deleted the addition of ₹10,46,500 made under section 69A.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessee is entitled for its claim of additional depreciation qua amounts not claimed in the preceding year. Thus, claim of the additional depreciation made during the year is allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that the benefit of working capital adjustment while computing the ALP has also not been borne in mind hence matter restored to the file of TPO/ AO for fresh determination in accordance with law.
Kerala High Court held that interest is admissible to the taxpayer in case of refund under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Accordingly, writ appeal of the revenue fails and the same is dismissed.
In the present cases, the respondents in the first batch of cases being non-resident assessees engaged in the business of exploration in terms of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are eligible assessees within the meaning of Section 144C.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely stating the probability of revenue succeeding in their appeal, is a bald statement which cannot be stated to be a reasonable plea for granting stay of order. Hence, stay not granted since sufficient cause not shown.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of express authorization, thus service upon the Chartered Accountant [CA] do not absolve the Tribunal of serving the copies of the order upon the assessee. Thus, appeal allowed and delay condoned.
