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 Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
ITAT Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
ITAT Raipur held that interest expenditure incurred for earning income chargeable under the head “Income from other sources” is allowable as deduction under section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act beyond permissible period of six years from date of receipt of books/ documents by AO.
Delhi High Court held that department need to comply with the order of the Tribunal in passing a fresh assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, notices initiating fresh assessment set aside.
Delhi High Court held that once the Tribunal had called upon the AO to examine the issue afresh, the said direction could not have been disregarded by reference to a Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989 issued by the CBDT.
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.
