ITAT Delhi held that routine support services would not be taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in terms of the provisions of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ITAT Mumbai held that the disbursal of loan scholarship to students in India for study overseas as application of income for charitable purposes in India. Thus, claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income and miscellaneous income earned by the assessee are directly related to the business of the assessee and assessable as business income only and not as income from other sources.
Compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) as the provisions of section 10(37) deal with ‘compensation’ only and not interest on compensation or enhanced compensation.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 326 days in filing quantum appeal and delay of 1 day in filing penalty appeal as assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in case of two contrary decision by non-jurisdictional High Courts, decision favourable to the assessee shall apply. Thus, order of CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act upheld.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 269D and 269E of the Income Tax Act without clear finding along with authentic evidence that provisions of section 269SS and 269T are violated is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court directed petitioner to satisfactorily prove that payment was duly made for inward supplies in respect of which it had claimed refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Karnataka High Court held that department was aware about the facts while issuing first show cause notice. Hence, no suppression can be held against the appellant and invoked while raising demand for subsequent period. Accordingly, allegation of suppression of facts not sustained.
Delhi High Court held that denial of Cenvat Credit merely because invoice contained incorrect address unjustified as invoice contained all the requisite particulars as required under proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
