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...
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
ITAT rules that an additional 54B claim omitted in the original return cannot be mechanically rejected. AO must examine the claim on merits, verifying capital gains utilisation and statutory conditions.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is eligible for entire credit of foreign taxes, even if the taxability was nil consequent to the deduction on account of business losses or section 10A exemption. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The assessee’s appeal succeeded in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was already declared in the return. The court held that initiating penalty proceedings on disclosed income exceeds the AO’s jurisdiction and is impermissible.
The Tribunal dismissed the rectification plea after holding that no mistake apparent on record was shown. It ruled that the assessee’s request amounted to seeking a review, which Section 254(2) does not permit.
ITAT Chandigarh quashed a Rs.16.24 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the fresh assessment accepted the returned income, confirming penalties require concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Telangana High Court ruled that an assessment order passed ten years after an ITAT remand violated Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It held that the order was barred by limitation and unsustainable in law. The Court directed refund of taxes with interest, subject to the outcome of the pending departmental appeal.
Delhi High Court directed payment of ₹ 36.85 lakh plus interest after Income-Tax Department delayed acting on ITAT order on indexation for inherited asset of AY 2016-17.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that trade scheme payment to sales promoters whether pure reimbursement or not needs proper verification and since AO granted relief without proper verification and application of mind, PCIT rightly invoked revisionary proceedings u/s. 263.
