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 centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The ITAT held that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional bench. An appeal filed before the wrong Tribunal is liable to dismissal at the threshold.
The Tribunal clarified that the institution existed solely for education and had no unrelated profit-oriented objects. Hence, the stricter test laid down in New Noble Educational Society did not apply.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed after the expiry of Section 153 is invalid, even if it follows DRP directions. The is that limitation under Section 153 remains mandatory and cannot be bypassed through the DRP route.
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.
