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 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...
Income Tax : The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues can...
The ITAT Hyderabad held that section 144C cannot override outer time limits under section 153. Assessments passed beyond statutory deadlines are void, reinforcing strict compliance with limitation periods.
The ITAT invalidated an assessment for AY 2008-09 after the AO failed to issue a mandatory draft order under section 144C during remand proceedings, highlighting procedural compliance in transfer pricing cases.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) passed beyond statutory time limits is invalid. The ruling reinforces that the outer limit under section 153 cannot be extended, emphasizing strict compliance with limitation provisions.
The Hyderabad tribunal clarified that section 144C provisions are procedural and cannot extend the statutory limitation under section 153. The AO passed the final assessment order after the permissible period, leading to quashing. The ruling strengthens the principle that statutory deadlines are paramount in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that issues like capitation fee or misuse of funds are assessment matters, not grounds for denying registration under Section 12AA. The ruling confirms that the Commissioner must limit inquiry to objects and genuineness of activities.
Court held that directing a ₹5-crore deposit was unwarranted since the disputed issues had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee. The order was set aside.
The Tribunal deleted ₹8,82,278/- addition after assessing income under two heads. Initially, the A.O. and CIT(A) had sustained the addition as unexplained. Key takeaway: all income heads must be considered during reconciliation after a search.
ITAT required the Assessing Officer to verify whether the correct tax credit was allowed. The assessee must present supporting evidence, ensuring accurate refunds under the Income Tax Act.
The Madras High Court ruled that Section 54F of the Income Tax Act can cover multiple residential units purchased from capital gains, reversing the ITAT’s single-flat restriction.
The ITAT held that an assessee’s procedural lapses cannot override statutory entitlement to deductions under section 10A. The AO must verify substantive conditions, including STPI registration and export realization, before rejecting a claim.
