The ITAT Mumbai held that Fees for Technical Services were taxable at 10% under section 115A(1)(b) since the RBI’s automatic approval mechanism satisfied the statutory requirements. The Tribunal ruled that the 15% DTAA rate could not be applied where domestic law provided a more beneficial rate.
The ITAT Delhi held that the CIT(A) must pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance. It remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after granting proper opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not make a disallowance under Section 14A when the case was selected only for limited scrutiny regarding deduction under Section 57. As no approval for complete scrutiny was obtained, the addition was deleted.
The Madras High Court held that GST proceedings under Section 74 were not time-barred after considering the COVID-19 limitation extensions and statutory relaxations. It dismissed the writ petition while permitting the taxpayer to pursue the appellate remedy.
The High Court held that once an NCLT-approved resolution plan comes into effect, claims not included in the plan stand extinguished. It quashed the income tax demand and ordered refund of the recovered amounts with interest.
The Tribunal held that additions not proposed in the original draft assessment order and unsupported by DRP directions could not be sustained. It reaffirmed that the statutory process under Section 144C must be followed before making prejudicial variations.
ITAT Bangalore held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied merely because a co-operative society has nominal or associate members recognised under the applicable State law. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The ITAT Raipur held that an application for final approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected solely because it was filed belatedly. It remanded the matter after directing the CIT(Exemption) to examine the trust’s genuineness and statutory conditions on merits.
ITAT Kolkata held that extensive documentary evidence, audited books, supplier confirmations and banking records established the genuineness of the purchases. It deleted the estimated addition sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Delhi High Court held that an assessment relying on a seized document and its author’s statement cannot be sustained without providing a real opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
