Income Tax : This article explains depreciation provisions under the Income-tax Act and Companies Act, including WDV, SLM, additional depreciat...
Income Tax : Taxpayers entering specified domestic transactions exceeding prescribed thresholds must maintain transfer pricing documentation, a...
Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
Income Tax : Explore deductions under Sections 80IA to 80IE for A.Y 2021-2025. Understand provisions, eligibility, quantum, and conditions. Sim...
Income Tax : Explore the rules and challenges of Domestic Transfer Pricing (DTP) in India. Learn about legal definitions, threshold limits, app...
Income Tax : Section 80-IA [4 (iii)] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for a tax holiday for 10 out of 15 years in respect of profits of any...
Income Tax : The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the Industrial Park Scheme 2008 and Rule 18C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to...
Income Tax : The Government has decided that telecom companies offering 3G services will not be allowed to claim tax breaks under Section 80 IA...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that unexplained trade credits falling under Section 68 cannot qualify for deduction under Section 80-I...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 80-IA(10) cannot be sustained without proving the statutory conditi...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT deleted the addition under Section 69A after holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of c...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court held that sales tax remission under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993 was a capital receipt as it was...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all ...
Income Tax : Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from Industrial Infrastructure Undertakings, et...
Income Tax : Notification No. 78/2010-Income Tax [F.No.178/100/2008-ITA-I], dated 11-10-2010 Government hereby notifies M/s. Marathon Nextgen ...
Income Tax : Notification No. 73/2010-Income Tax Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-sect...
Income Tax : Notification No. 66/2010-Income Tax in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the...
Income Tax : Notification No. 54/2010-Income Tax Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-sect...
Court ruled that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued through the faceless mechanism under Section 151A and the 2022 Scheme. Notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was held invalid and quashed.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that goodwill arising from a High Court-approved amalgamation qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
Calcutta High Court held that failure to investigate allocation of common head office expenses to eligible units rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-generating intra-group service. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment after finding the benchmarking method adopted by the TPO unjustified.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 80JJAA could not be claimed where the business was acquired through amalgamation. The Tribunal held that transfer of assets, liabilities, and business operations constituted business reorganisation under the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans at a fixed 6.5% rate instead of floating LIBOR rates. The Tribunal also directed grant of credit for interest income already offered to tax suo motu.
The Tribunal found that the transfer pricing adjustment was incorrectly computed using SEB sale rates. It allowed deduction based on consumer tariff rates. The decision clarifies benchmarking for captive consumption.
The Tribunal held that industrial tariff charged by electricity boards is the correct benchmark for CPP transactions. It rejected the use of generator procurement rates adopted by the TPO.
The issue concerned overlap of deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80HHC. The Court held that 80HHC profits cannot be reduced by 80-IA deduction, ensuring independent computation.
The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that excluding such elements artificially reduces eligible deduction.
