ITAT Pune held that default in allotting ‘DIN and Order’ results into quashing of the impugned assessment as according to CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 such an order ought to be treated as to have never been issued herein.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from sale of software (i.e. copyrighted article) cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received by the assessee from providing SAP support services and IT support services is not covered within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not taxable in India in absence of permanent establishment.
ITAT Delhi held that the amount of received in the arbitration settlement is related to project office of the assessee company in India. Accordingly, the same is taxable in India.
ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available towards purchase of undivided share of land.
ITAT Mumbai held that while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, the current profit is not to be included to be part of accumulated profit.
ITAT Delhi held that AO cannot put the entire burden on the assessee to show in whose hands the inadvertent receipts shown in Form 26AS has been declared. Assessee is not responsible to explain the recipients of such inadvertent receipts shown in Form No. 26AS.
ITAT Chennai held that profit on transfer of flats to partners is computable in the hands of firm, however, benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act duly available even on transfer of flats to the partners by way of MOU.
ITAT Delhi held that determination of the rent or CAM are separate and the CAM arrangements are not essential and an integral part for use of the premises. Hence, provisions for rent are governed by Section 194I and CAM charges by Section 194C of the Act.
Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017 granting of personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is taken by the AO against the assessee. Non-granting of the same is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order liable to be quashed.
