The Tribunal found that subscription payments were made for using copyrighted articles, not for using copyright itself. Hence, the income was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA with the USA.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the AO failed to record any allegation of the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reaffirms that reopening beyond four years requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 147.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period were from genuine business cash sales. The addition of Rs. 20.86 lakh by the AO and CIT(A) was based on assumptions and was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a genuine ₹50 lakh loan received and fully repaid with interest cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68. The addition by AO and CIT(A) was deleted as the assessee provided full banking and repayment evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹1.06 crore addition under Section 41(1). The tribunal held that the unsecured loans were used for capital expenditure, not trading purposes, making the addition inapplicable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits of Rs. 17.29 lakh were merely redeposits of earlier withdrawals. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted as the evidence showed no unexplained income.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) violated section 250(6) as not all grounds were adjudicated. The case was restored for a fresh, reasoned hearing.
ITAT Hyderabad upheld the dismissal of a trust’s appeal as barred by limitation due to a delay of nearly five years. The tribunal emphasized that no reasonable cause was shown to condone the delay under section 249(3).
