Income Tax : The Income Tax Department has clarified the purpose, contents, and access to the Annual Information Statement (AIS) and Taxpayer I...
Income Tax : A detailed overview of limitation periods prescribed under the Income-tax Act reveals how missing statutory deadlines can lead to ...
Company Law : Understand Sections 89 and 90 of the Companies Act, 2013, focusing on legal ownership declarations and significant beneficial owne...
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the complexities of tax compliance for freelancers and gig workers, from understanding income sources to navigating legal...
Income Tax : Understand the concept of Updated Return under the Income-tax Act, its necessity, tax implications, and filing process. Get insigh...
Income Tax : The Central Government have notified the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China” as ‘s...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that IT, salary and travel reimbursements without any profit element were not taxable and deleted the disallowance...
Income Tax : ITAT held that delayed filing of Form 67 is a procedural lapse and directed the AO to grant foreign tax credit claimed under Secti...
Income Tax : ITAT held that foreign tax credit cannot be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the return, subject to verification ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that foreign exchange gains arising from realization of export proceeds from services rendered to associated enterpr...
Income Tax : The ITAT found inconsistencies in the selection and rejection of comparable companies for determining the arm’s length price of ...
Income Tax : The Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides that the Central Board of Direct Taxes may prescribe rules specifying the procedure fo...
Income Tax : Notification No. 3/2011 - Income Tax WHEREAS the annexed Agreement among the Governments of SAARC (South Asian Association for Re...
Income Tax : Notification No. 86/2010-Income Tax Whereas, an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of Republic of India and the Gov...
Income Tax : Notification No. 36/2010-Income Tax Whereas, an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of Republic of India and the Gov...
Income Tax : Notification No. 25/2010-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by Explanation 2 to section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961...
The Tribunal held that long-term capital losses can be carried forward even when long-term capital gains are exempt under the India–Mauritius DTAA. Exempt gains do not enter the computation of total income and therefore cannot absorb the losses.
Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
The Tribunal ruled that delayed filing or incorrect disclosure in Form 67 does not automatically disentitle an assessee from claiming Foreign Tax Credit. Substantial justice must prevail over technical procedural defects.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural defect and cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-USA DTAA.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal treated the delay as a procedural defect.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as mandated by law. The Tribunal quashed the tax adjustment denying concessional tax benefits because the mandatory opportunity of response was not provided.
The Delhi ITAT held that belated filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural lapse and cannot extinguish substantive Foreign Tax Credit rights under sections 90/90A/91 and applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal directed verification and grant of FTC where the form was filed before completion of assessment proceedings.
High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capital gains because no ascertainable cost of acquisition existed, making computation provisions unworkable.
The Tribunal held that FTC claims cannot be rejected solely due to incomplete foreign tax return filing. The key takeaway is that authorities must verify available and subsequent evidence before denying relief.
The issue was denial of FTC due to delayed filing of Form 67. ITAT held that delay is procedural and directed authorities to grant credit after verification.
