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...
The Tribunal held that although estimation of income was justified due to absence of books and non-filing of return, applying the 8% presumptive rate automatically was excessive. Considering the nature of the garment business, it reduced the estimated profit to 6.5% of bank credits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that requirement of Form no. 3CL for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from AY 2016-2017. Accordingly, denial of claim for pre-amended period is not justifiable. Thus, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held 100% bogus purchase disallowance unsustainable where sales and banking trail were proven; restricted addition to 5% profit element, following earlier years.
The ITAT Bangalore held that once an Order Giving Effect (OGE) is passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254, the Assessing Officer cannot issue a second order for the same assessment year. The Tribunal declared the second OGE non-est and without jurisdiction, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed and books of account remain intact, purchase additions require stronger evidence. In the absence of contrary material, the ₹35.48 lakh disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that since the assessment was legally correct when passed, invoking Section 154 after a later Supreme Court decision was impermissible. The addition was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal affirmed restricting Section 14A disallowance to the actual exempt income earned. It also held the Finance Act, 2022 explanation to be prospective, protecting taxpayers for earlier years.
The Tribunal held that a registered JV agreement with possession in 2011 constituted transfer under section 2(47). Capital gains could not be taxed in AY 2017-18 and had to be aligned to the correct year.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
