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 it is settled principle of law that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the exempt income.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable since there is no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee.
Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act results in rendering the final assessment as one without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount of compensation for defective product being capital in nature cannot be adjusted from WDV of the assets.
Karnataka High Court held that even if the tax paid is found to be less than that payable, no further demand can be made for recovery of the balance amount when a fresh assessment is barred.
Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked by PCIT as order of assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Dive deep into case of DCIT Vs Suman Solanki, as ITAT Jaipur discusses its authority to rectify mistakes, amendments from Finance Act, 2021, and interpretation of Section 254(2).
ITAT Delhi held that the income from technical handling services received from ‘International Airlines Technical Pool (IATP) members is not taxable in India as it is covered under Article 8(2) r.w. Article 8(1) of India-France DTAA.
This article analyzes how Section 153’s time limit prevails over Section 144C’s assessment time limit, based on the case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs ACIT in Bombay High Court.
