ITAT Delhi held that offshore services that involve offshore supply of drawings and designs are inextricably linked with the offshore supply of Plant and equipment. Accordingly, the receipts from offshore services does not give rise to any income accruing or arising in India and therefore not taxable under the Act.
Income tax authorities could not step into the shoes of businessmen to determine how much expenditure should have been incurred for the purpose of business. as an organization incurred both operating expenses as well as non-operating expenses for running the business and there were certain expenses which were not allocable to a particular activity.
ITAT Mumbai held that the amount of interest u/s. 244A of the Income Tax Act is to be calculated by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance left if any shall be adjusted towards the tax component.
ITAT Mumbai held that investment in NABARD Bonds beyond the specified time of six months cannot be considered for claiming exemption under the provisions of section 54EC of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of life insurance business, the income should be computed as per provisions of section 44 of the Income Tax Act and to be taxed under section 115B.
ITAT Mumbai held that payments/compensation paid by developer is in the nature of hardship allowance / rehabilitation allowance is capital receipt and is not liable to tax.
ITAT Jaipur held that as defect notice issued u/s. 139(9) of the Income Tax Act is not in accordance with the law and hence the return of income filed by the assessee should be considered as valid return.
Discover how the ITAT Delhi ruled on penalty proceedings, emphasizing the importance of a precise notice specifying the offense under Section 271(1)(c).
ITAT Dehradun quashes reassessment proceedings in Uttarakhand Purv Kalyan Nigam Limited vs ITO case, citing lack of approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
In the Rajendra G. Parekh vs ITO case, ITAT Mumbai restricts additions to 0.05% of gross total, questioning the handling of bank accounts and involvement in bogus business activities.
