The issue was whether payments for supplying in-flight entertainment content constituted royalty. The Tribunal held that mere provision and processing of licensed content without transfer of copyright does not amount to royalty under the India-UK DTAA.
The issue was whether contingent liabilities disclosed only in the tax audit report could be added under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held that such additions require factual verification and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether a mismatch between ledger sales and P&L sales justified a major addition. The Tribunal held that reconciliation explaining VAT, service tax, and other receipts removed the difference, making the addition unsustainable.
The issue was whether appeals could be dismissed outright for delay without examining the merits. The Tribunal held that justice required restoration where plausible reasons for delay were cited and directed reconsideration.
The issue was whether appeals dismissed for an extraordinary delay could be restored. The Tribunal held that, despite the assessee’s lapses, justice required giving an opportunity to seek condonation and have the case decided on merits.
The issue was whether higher depreciation on goods carriage vehicles could be disallowed during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable claims need scrutiny and cannot be adjusted under section 143(1).
The ITAT held that depreciation cannot be disallowed when ownership, usage, and actual cost of assets are undisputed. Mere suspicion about the source of funds is insufficient to deny statutory depreciation.
The issue was whether interest on INR-denominated CCDs should be benchmarked using LIBOR or domestic rates. The Tribunal held that PLR applies, rendering the transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable.
The issue was whether a short delay in filing an appeal justified outright dismissal. The Tribunal held that illness supported by medical evidence constituted reasonable cause and restored the appeal for merits adjudication.
The Supreme Court held that at the Section 11 stage, courts only check prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and must leave all deeper objections to the arbitral tribunal.
