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 : Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a fresh assessment within Section 153 limitation required acceptance of the returned i...
Income Tax : ITAT held the assessment time-barred as the AO failed to pass the final order within the mandatory timeline under Section 144C(13)...
Income Tax : Provisions that were typically restricted or viewed as contingent become fully deductible business expenses the moment they were q...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdict...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by following Karnataka High Court's ruling in Biocon Ltd. Tribu...
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.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer in the matter of addition of Rs. 30 Crores u/s. 68 since additional evidence filed under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 963 substantiating genuineness of business advances.
Assessee claimed deduction under section 54F on the basis that the long-term capital gain earned from the transfer of tenancy/possessory rights was invested for the purchase of a residential flat.
Gujarat High Court held that in view of the retrospective amendment u/s. 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act the assessee is eligible to pay tax at lower rate @10% instead of 20% on sale of unlisted share even in absence of filing the claim by way of revised return.
Gujarat High Court held that Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] to be followed under the Faceless Assessment Procedure of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act in case of non-responsive notice not followed. Accordingly, order quashed and matter remanded back to Faceless assessment authority.
ITAT Kolkata rules in favor of Philips India, affirming 30% depreciation on moulds owned by the company but used by exclusive vendors for manufacturing.
