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 Ahmedabad held that appellate authority has jurisdiction to entertain new claim. Accordingly, additional claim for deduction on account of ESOP is allowed. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Mumbai orders DVO reference in Fakhruddin T. Malik case, ruling AO erred by not valuing disputed property despite assessee’s request.
ITAT Delhi held that incentives in the form of excise duty refund, sales tax remission, sales/ VAT input tax refund received under the Incentive Scheme are capital receipts and hence not chargeable to income tax. Accordingly, ground of the assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the filing of a cross-objection. Thus, cross objection would not be maintainable.
ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is invalid and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
ACIT (OSD) Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi): Subsequent judgment reversing earlier Legal Interpretation, cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record, requiring exercise of powers u/s 254(2) for recall of order
ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment framed u/s. 148A(d) without application of mind and without controverting the explanation of the assessee is bad in law and is accordingly being quashed. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without disposing the objections raised by the assessee is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, reassessment notice u/s. 148 set aside.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order passed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act read with first proviso below explanation 1 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, petition succeeds.
ITAT passed ex-parte order in absence of assessee and held that any assessment, whether it be first round or otherwise framed under section 153A without getting approval under section 153D of Act, is not sustainable in law.
