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...
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.
Analysis of Bombay High Court’s ruling in CCIT(OSD)/PCIT Vs Bhupendra Champaklal Dalal regarding presumption of interest-free usage of funds when interest-free and interest-bearing funds are mixed
Delhi High Court rules that Income Tax Officer cannot withhold taxpayer’s deposited amount without framing final assessment order during stay period. Full judgment analysis.
In the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited Vs ACIT before the ITAT Hyderabad, a Miscellaneous Application (MA) was dismissed as it raised arguments not presented during the main appeal and emphasized the restricted scope of Section 254(2).
There is no bar on appellate authority to entertain additional claim during assessment proceedings in absence of any statutory provisions.
