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 penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act not imposable as reasonable cause shown for non-furnishing of consent form sought by AO.
ITAT Hyderabad held that in absence of any substantial proceeding or collateral proceedings pending before AO, AO was right in not entertaining the application for rectification filed by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that re-computation of capital gains by considering the lower value of consideration for the sale of equity shares of the subsidiary company allowable as the genuineness of the same is proved.
Delhi High Court held that in terms of rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, when the Tribunal has ex-parte disposed of the appeal on merits and thereafter the appellant appears, the Tribunal shall set aside the ex-parte order and restore the appeal if sufficient cause is shown.
Bombay High Court held that as per provisions of section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act any order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under Section 254, 263 or 264 should be made within a period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order is received. Order passed beyond the same will be time barred.
It is trite law that whenever a litigant invokes a particular remedy available under a Statute, then the authority before whom the lis is preferred and pending, is ordinarily duty bound to decide the same on merits.
Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) To make the scheme of section 254(2) workable and to ensure that the limitation period for filing of the appeal is to be computed in a manner in harmony with the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court above, the limitation period is to be […]
While considering the application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record.
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 down the third proviso of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act (Act) as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of being arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
Concerning the scope of section 254, ignoring the material already on record on the part of Tribunal was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Thus, Tribunal had rightly recalled its order and rectified the mistake and it had rightly set aside the additions under Section 68.
