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 : ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance computed under Section 14A cannot be directly added while computing book profits under Section ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the li...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional in...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) pe...
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
Expenses incurred for a proposed business project later abandoned were allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that such costs remain deductible if incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The issue concerned failure to follow tribunal remand directions on comparables. The ruling held that such non-compliance caused procedural irregularity, leading to exclusion of certain comparables and recomputation of ALP.
ITAT Mumbai held that with respect to benchmarking of export transaction, foreign Associated Enterprise [AE] can be chosen as tested party since AE possess the least complex functional analysis. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment not justifiable.
The court held that parties cannot introduce additional evidence as a matter of right under Rule 29. The ITAT’s acceptance of Revenue-filed evidence and remand order was set aside as beyond jurisdiction.
Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
Retrospective cancellation of registration was held to be invalid as the scheme of Act did not permit cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) with retrospective effect in absence of explicit statutory authority.
The Tribunal held that the maintainability of the appeal must be based on the correct tax effect and not erroneous figures in Form 36. Since the actual tax effect was below the CBDT threshold, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing strict adherence to monetary limits.
ITAT Raipur held that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an income tax appeal solely for non-prosecution.
