ITAT Ahmedabad held that book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act cannot be computed by including disallowances made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in absence of FTS (Fees for Technical Service) clause in the India UAE Tax Treaty, payment for the FTS services cannot be taxed in India, unless it is established that the overseas company i.e. Oilstone UAE has a permanent establishment (PE) in India.
ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act without considering the documents and evidences is unjustified. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as there was due compliance with provisions of section 194C(6). Violation of provisions of section 194C(7) doesnot attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that as domestic industry doesn’t manufacture/produce colour coated coil, anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed on the same.
Supreme Court held that conviction based on statement of single person without recovery of any incriminating documents/ articles during search is unjustified. Non-recovery during search obviously benefits the appellant.
Gujarat High Court held that in respect of the proceedings where the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is attracted, the benefit of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation And Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA 2020) will not be available to the revenue.
ITAT Delhi held that co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years duly hold that Huawei India is permanent establishment of Huawei China in India. Based on norms of judicial discipline the same is implied in the present assessment too.
Calcutta High Court held that Tribunal duly examined the terms and conditions of the agreement and found that warranty clause is in-built. Accordingly, provision of warranty is duly allowable.
Delhi High Court held that procedure prescribed under rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 is to be followed for any party (including the person who participated in the anti-dumping investigation) requires any information. Rule 7 procedure cannot be bypassed by resorting to RTI.
