In case of Prtatap Singh Yadav Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) assessment order was declared invalid due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No.19/2019.
Read detailed analysis of the case Practo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) where ITAT declared DRP directions invalid due to missing DIN.
Explore the case of Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd vs DCIT, where a missing Document Identification Number (DIN) led to the invalidation of an income tax assessment order
Aamor Inox Ltd’s appeal against the IT department’s order on MEIS License treatment under the Income Tax Act is directed for denovo adjudication by ITAT Delhi.
Learn why ITAT Chennai deleted the penalty in the case of S. A. Poultry Farms vs. ITO for failure to upload the income tax return electronically. Detailed analysis provided.
Explore the case of Sanjay Kothari vs. ACIT and learn about importance of admissions in search or survey cases. Understand implications of an assessment order lacking DIN and Order number.
Explore Gerah Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT case where order under Section 263 was quashed for violating CBDT Circular No. 19/2019.
Explore case of V.R. Usha Vs ITO, where Section 54F exemption was denied despite partial property ownership, and how it sets a precedent for similar cases.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue received by the assessee for providing centralized services is not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s. 9(I)(vi) Explanation of Income Tax Act, but it is a business income and since assessee is not having PE in India, the same is not taxable.
ITAT Mumbai held that there was no express arrangement / agreement between the assessee and the AE for incurring advertisement, marketing and promotional expenses (AMP) to promote the brand of the AE and hence the said transactions would not constitute international transaction relating to AMP expenditure. Thus, TP adjustment deleted.
