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 : Inter/Intra Circle Remittance Balance represented only internal transfer and reconciliation entries relating to assets and stock...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that transfer pricing analysis should focus on international transactions rather than entity-level profitability...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficien...
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...
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.
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.
