ITAT Delhi held that payments received by a US company for software licensing and support services cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, such income was classified as business profits and held non-taxable under the India-USA DTAA.
The SAFEMA Tribunal upheld the attachment of land registered in a tribal’s name, finding it a benami transaction under the amended Act. The ruling confirmed that purchasing restricted tribal land using funds provided by a non-tribal beneficial owner for future commercial resort development is illegal circumvention.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order, holding that the AO’s decision to allow Section 80G deduction on voluntarily disallowed CSR expenses was a plausible view. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court principle that Section 263 revision cannot be invoked merely for holding an alternate opinion.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the surcharge rate on the residual income of a trust must be restricted to 15%, not 37%. This decision follows the principle that the surcharge rate is governed by the Finance Act provisions, even if the base tax rate is the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR).
The ITAT upheld the classification of a Rs.5 crore loss on the sale of shares as a capital loss, not a business loss, because the NBFC consistently held the shares as non-current investments for over three years. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee’s accounting treatment and the mandated sale under Supreme Court directions confirmed the investment motive.
The Tribunal ruled that the lease rentals received by Irish residents were exempt from tax in India under Article 8 of the treaty, following precedent on operating leases. The ruling affirms that the DTAA explicitly covers the rental of aircraft (including helicopters) in international traffic.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC disallowing the co-operative society’s Section 80P claim was bad in law for pre-A.Y. 2021-22 years. The ruling confirms that for earlier years, the AO could not summarily deny this deduction through an intimation order.
ITAT Pune ruled that the CPC erred in restricting TDS credit for a cooperative society based on a turnover mismatch in Form 26AS. The difference was due to the same sale being subjected to double TDS under both Section 194-O and Section 194-Q, wrongly inflating the receipts and TDS entries.
The Pune ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that the alleged unexplained investment transaction occurred in the earlier financial year. The ruling emphasizes the Assessing Officer’s duty to verify the correct assessment year before invoking Section 69, as liability must attach to the right period.
ITAT Rajkot deletes a ₹70,000 penalty under Section 271(1)(b) because the notices and order were issued to a deceased individual. The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated against a dead person are void ab initio, emphasizing that legal heirs must be brought on record first.
