ITAT Delhi held In the case of Tsurphu Labrang vs. DIT (Exemptions) that Rule 17A itself provides that it is not necessary that the Institution/Trust should be established under an instrument. The Rule 17A does not prescribe that in case the Institution/Trust
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Honda Trading Corporation. vs, DCIT that despite the use of the word `may’, the time limit for passing the order by the TPO is mandatory, as in the otherwise situation of the TPO having been allowed more time by implication
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Alcatel-Lucent Technologies. vs, DCIT that merely because the assessee in the TP study had included the comparable, which was accepted by TPO, it does not follow that the assessee cannot resile from its original claim at a later stage of proceeding
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT observed that the assessee has acquired the service agreement whereby all the liabilities, rights and obligation and interest in the afore-stated agreement are acquired by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held in Goldman Sachs( India) Securities Pvt. Ltd Vs The DCIT that only functionally comparable company should be compared for comparing the margin percentage of the assessee company with comparable company.
ITAT Kolkata held in the case of DCIT Vs Shri Subhotosh Majumder that the amended law of the deduction of tax at source of services which were to be utilized in India would be taxable in India would not have retrospective effect on the tax liability of withholding taxes.
ITAT Mumbai held in Punjab & Sind Dairy Products Pvt Ltd Vs Dy. CIT that in the case of assessee itself in earlier year, ITAT had rejected the books of accounts on the basis that assessee failed to produce books of accounts as demanded by ITAT.
ITAT held in M/s F.C Sondhi & Co.(India) P Ltd Vs The DCIT that the premium paid on the keyman Insurance Policy would be allowed as a business expense because the same had been paid for the growth
ITAT Delhi held in case of ACIT Vs. PTC Industries Ltd. ITAT held that when expenditure claimed is genuine then penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be levied. ITAT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC) wherein it was held that merely because of the assessee’s claim
In the case of DCIT Vs. Soma Textiles & Industries Limited , ITAT Rajkot has dismissed 251 Appeal filed by Department as Tax effect in these appeals was not exceeding Rs. 10 Lakh, in view of recent CBDT circular no. 21/2015 dated 10th December 2015.
