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 : Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a fresh assessment within Section 153 limitation required acceptance of the returned i...
Income Tax : ITAT held the assessment time-barred as the AO failed to pass the final order within the mandatory timeline under Section 144C(13)...
Income Tax : Provisions that were typically restricted or viewed as contingent become fully deductible business expenses the moment they were q...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Assistant Commissioner who lacked pecuniary jurisdict...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by following Karnataka High Court's ruling in Biocon Ltd. Tribu...
The dispute examined whether satellite transponder charges paid to a foreign entity constituted royalty requiring tax deduction at source. The Tribunal held that such payments were not royalty under the India–UK DTAA, as there was no use of a secret process or transfer of rights. Consequently, no withholding tax obligation arose under section 195
The case examined whether tax authorities could deny working capital adjustment despite clear prior directions of the Tribunal. The ITAT held that such directions are binding and must be implemented in letter and spirit. Once the adjustment was granted, the assessee’s margin fell within the permissible arm’s length rang
Despite deficiencies in documentation, agricultural activity and landholding were undisputed. The Tribunal granted partial relief while sustaining a modest addition. The decision highlights a balanced approach where activity is proven but evidence is imperfect.
The case examined whether full purchase disallowance was justified without rejecting books of account. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, only a reasonable profit element could be added.
Authorities added ₹8 crore as unexplained investment in the wrong year. The Tribunal confirmed that the cash component belonged to a prior year. The ruling stresses year-specific taxation of undisclosed transactions.
The issue was whether delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions paid before filing the return could be allowed. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Checkmate Services is declaratory and applies to earlier years, mandating disallowance.
The dispute concerned taxation of land sale as capital gains despite claims that it was agricultural land beyond municipal limits. The Tribunal held that rejecting the claim without examining evidence was improper and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee given to Associate Enterprise is not sustainable based on settled orders of Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in earlier years. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
