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 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.
It was ruled that the bar on fresh claims applies only to assessing officers, not appellate bodies. A valid Section 54F claim must be examined on merits during appeal.
The Tribunal held that income tax appeals cannot continue during CIRP, as the IBC moratorium bars parallel proceedings. Claims not forming part of an approved resolution plan cannot be pursued.
The Tribunal clarified that section 292BB only cures defects in service of notice, not complete absence of a valid jurisdictional notice. Participation in proceedings cannot validate an assessment initiated by an incompetent authority.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of bad debts claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is not justifiable if offered as income in any year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify that amount for which bad debts have claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) were indeed offered as income for the said years.
The reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
