The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 148 cannot be initiated after three years unless the alleged escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh. Since the disputed amount was only ₹7.10 lakh, the reopening was quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that expenditure on software licences, maintenance, database access and periodic upgrades is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that mere use of software does not create a capital asset or enduring ownership right.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot impose the maximum 90% penalty under Section 271AAB without recording extraordinary reasons. In absence of special circumstances, the penalty was restricted to the minimum prescribed rate of 30%.
The Mumbai ITAT held that taxability cannot be conclusively decided while an application for exemption under Section 10(46) remains pending before the CBDT. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the CBDT’s final decision.
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 Tribunal ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot pass two reassessment orders for the same assessment year, same transaction, and same addition. The first reassessment proceedings were held legally unsustainable.
The Mumbai ITAT reaffirmed that lease rentals from SEZ and IT Parks along with amenities are taxable as business income. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No. 16/2017 and multiple judicial precedents supporting taxpayers.
CCI directed investigation into allegations that certain liquor manufacturers and distributors entered into restrictive agreements to increase market share and influence retail supply patterns.
Time-share membership fees received upfront were not fully taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same year as it was intrinsically linked with continuing contractual obligations to provide accommodation and related facilities throughout the membership period and it can be spread over the contract period because services are given for many years.
In case of corporate guarantee, “No consideration- no tax liability under GST” Bombay High court. In the recent case of M/s. D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Private Limited vs Union of India and others Bombay High Courtheld that, In case of corporate guarantee, There was no flow of consideration for the rendering of services, […]
