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...
ITAT ruled that interest disallowance cannot be made when sufficient interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that availability of own funds overrides assumptions of borrowed fund usage.
The case addressed whether delayed filing of Form 10-IC invalidates a claim under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal held that the delay was procedural and directed allowance of the concessional tax rate.
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.
