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 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...
Income Tax : The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues can...
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had accorded relief and allowed a deduction, the same was liable to be necessarily made by the AO. Accordingly, order denying relief pursuant to Tribunal decision is liable to be quashed.
Read the detailed analysis of ITO Vs Neetaben Snehalkumar Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) where Section 254(2) was scrutinized for rectification versus recall of orders.
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.
