ITAT Kolkata held that TPO should follow the direction of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Accordingly, matter to the file of ld. TPO/AO for further calculation of TP adjustment by considering the direction of the Hon’ble DRP.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on reason to suspect unsustainable as AO failed to demonstrate live link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
Bangalore ITAT’s ruling on cash deposits during demonetization raises questions on verification methods. Learn about the case between ITO and Shri Chatrapati Shivaji.
Apeejay Surrendra Management Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata held that deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act can be added in the hands of beneficial shareholder who is having controlling interest (substantial interest). Facts- Assessee is engaged in the business of Brand Owning and Consultancy. During the year […]
Read the detailed analysis of Fortune Park Hotels Ltd vs. ACIT case where ITAT Delhi allowed deduction of ESOP expenses claimed within the prescribed time limit.
ITAT Delhi held that there is no provision regarding establishment of virtual service PE under India-Singapore DTAA and hence physical rendition of service in India is required under India-Singapore DTAA as per present service PE.
In the case of Kalika Parameswari Co-op Society vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore allows deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income from cooperative bank investments.
Learn about the ITAT Mumbai ruling that prohibits filing appeals during a moratorium under section 14 IBC, as seen in the case of Kaushal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO.
HCG Global Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) case ruling: Telecom interconnect usage payments received by a foreign company from an Indian operator deemed non-taxable as ‘royalty’ under the Income Tax Act.
In the case of Dhanterash Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, ITAT Kolkata ruled that the assessment order was deemed time-barred due to lack of evidence for timely issuance, dismissing the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
