ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is engaged in development of the infrastructure facility and therefore, a developer, which confers right of eligibility to the assessee to claim benefits u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. Mere referring assessee as a contractor in the agreement cannot deprive assessee from claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that government grants received in lieu of FRP i.e. Financial Restructuring Plant is not required to be reduced from the cost of capital assets. Accordingly, reopening of assessment unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that income from subscription, professional and training services for use of software doesn’t fall within the definition of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under India-Netherlands DTAA and hence cannot be taxed in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest on unsecured loans unjustified as genuineness of loans and utilization of loan funds for business purpose not disputed and interest paid on open in balances of unsecured loan creditors.
Explore the case of Alankit Imaginations Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi), where penalties were challenged. Learn why a ‘non-cooperative attitude’ alone cannot justify penalties.
ITAT Delhi held that as per India-USA DTAA provision of consultancy services cannot be treated as FIS merely because the service provider while providing consultancy services had used substantial technical skill and expertise.
ITAT Kolkata held that the assessee has no permanent establishment in India and these services were also rendered outside India but the services has been used in India and, therefore, it is taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of employee stock option expenses alleging it to be capital expenditure is unsustainable in law in as much as such expenditure are revenue in nature and hence allowable.
ITAT Mumbai held that entire assessment order passed in the case of non-existing entity is null and void and hence is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as interest bearing funds not utilized towards purchase of capital assets (i.e. land).
