The issue concerned whether failure to deduct TDS on foreign commission warranted disallowance. The Tribunal held that Section 195 is triggered only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India, reaffirming settled Supreme Court principles.
The issue was whether protective additions could survive after substantive additions were confirmed in other hands. ITAT Chandigarh held that once substantive additions are upheld, protective additions must be deleted to avoid double taxation.
The ITAT held that the PCIT (Central) had no authority to cancel trust registration under Section 12AB. Jurisdiction for exemption matters lies exclusively with the Commissioner (Exemption).
BOCW and welfare cess laws could be treated as subsequent legislation under highway contracts. The Supreme Court held that unless welfare boards and machinery were actually implemented, the cess could not be imposed retrospectively on contractors.
The Tribunal emphasized that where land cost is separately reflected, indexation must be granted. It remanded the matter to verify records and recompute capital gains accordingly, ensuring lawful assessment.
The Tribunal examined disallowance of commission paid to cooperative milk unions and held that the payments were actually mandatory royalty fixed by government instructions. Since the assessee had no discretion and the recipients disclosed income, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT ruled that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order bars initiation of penalty under Section 271E. Supervisory revision cannot substitute the Assessing Officer’s statutory discretion.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 cannot be triggered merely on the Assessing Officers recommendation. Independent examination and satisfaction of the Commissioner is a mandatory legal requirement.
The Court examined whether payments for live sports telecast amount to royalty. It ruled that without recording or re-telecast rights, live feed payments lack enduring benefit and are not taxable as royalty.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot survive when the final addition departs from the original Section 148A notice. Consistency of information throughout the reopening process is mandatory.
