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 : Mumbai ITAT held that an order labelled as a draft assessment order loses its character if accompanied by demand notices and penal...
Income Tax : The ITAT Chennai held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since t...
Income Tax : ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effec...
Income Tax : Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed mi...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that compensation received under the HMT Tractor Division closure package qualified for exemption under Secti...
The Tribunal held that the facts relating to delayed revised return in Shriram Investments were distinguishable and therefore did not bar consideration of the assessee’s agricultural land exemption claim.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the issue of alleged unexplained investment to the Assessing Officer after observing that adequate opportunity was not granted before lower authorities. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice required fresh examination of the assessee’s records.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance computed under Section 14A cannot be directly added while computing book profits under Section 115JB. Matter was remanded for fresh computation following the Vireet Investment ruling.
ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written back and taxed in a subsequent year could not again be taxed through disallowance in earlier years.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153. The Court ruled that procedural remand directions did not extend limitation under Section 153(6).
ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional income cannot be brought to tax. The ruling relied on the principle that only real income is taxable.
The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) permits only correction of apparent errors, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s application.
The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues cannot be adjusted at the processing stage, resulting in relief to the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural boundaries.
The issue was whether a share transfer without consideration constituted taxable capital gains. The Tribunal held that genuine family realignment is not taxable.
The case examined whether failure to consider a binding tribunal precedent constitutes an error. The ITAT held that such non-consideration is a mistake apparent on record and recalled the issue for fresh adjudication.
