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 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.
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.
