Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and bank records. The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot be sustained merely on suspicion.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding supporting invoices, confirmations, and banking records on record.
ITAT Rajkot held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of the addition to 13.7% instead of the full purchase amount.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire transaction value. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter on merits after considering documentary evidence.
Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
Mumbai ITAT held that business receipts from an Indian associated enterprise were not taxable in India because the assessee had no Permanent Establishment under the India-UAE DTAA. The Tribunal ruled that mere provision of personnel did not automatically create a PE.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplantation and continuous dialysis treatment.
