ITAT Mumbai held that foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee attributable to purchase of material is revenue expenditure and it cannot be included in the cost of project. Accordingly, the same is allowable as deduction.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, because, the issue of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, has been considered by the AO while completing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) u/s.263 of the Act unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that documents seized from employees cannot be considered as having any evidentiary value and cannot be considered to have trustworthiness, since no other corroborative material was brought on record to support the veracity of the same. Hence, documents seized from employees cannot be relied upon for denying exemption u/s 11.
ITAT Kolkata held that the Indian Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act as ICC is not carrying on any activity of holding meetings, seminars and conferences for business purpose but only in support its main object hence it is not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act even post amendments.
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessee being a film artist, physical fitness is a part and parcel of his profession, but it cannot be held to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the profession of the assessee. Hence, disallowance of physical fitness expenditure justifiable in law.
In a landmark ruling, ITAT Mumbai delves into ITO vs. Macrotech Developer Ltd., analyzing tax implications on international transactions, focusing on architectural services, brokerage, and expense reimbursements under ITA and DTAA. A comprehensive verdict that sets a significant precedent in international taxation law.
Read case of Monarch & Qureshi Builders challenging an ITAT Mumbai order, highlighting jurisdictional issues in Section 143(2) notice for quashing assessment.
Read ITAT decision on the eligibility of a cooperative society for a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The case, Keyyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO, addresses interest income on investments in a cooperative bank without a banking license.
ITAT Chennai’s in Ethiraj Hotel Mart Vs DCIT held that as assessee declared excess stock as business income and provided a plausible explanation for its source, it should be taxed as ‘normal business income’ and not as ‘unexplained investment’ under section 69B.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of taxpayer Simran Bagga, allowing deduction under section 54 for property registered in spouse’s name. Full text and analysis here.
