ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained excel sheet and whatsapp chat are incriminating material found and seized during the course of search action.
ITAT Bangalore held that PCIT duly invoked provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order was passed by AO without carrying out necessary enquiry/verification.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of action u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of shortfall in TDS on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, matter remanded to AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(E) failed to examine the aspects as directed by the High Court in the matter of application for registration under section 10(23C)(via). Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(E).
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 towards unsecured loan amount unjustified as identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transaction duly proved by way of documentary evidences.
ITAT Delhi held that the expenditure not claimed cannot be disallowed while determining the taxable income. Hence, disallowance of contingent liability as expenditure unjustified as the same was never claimed as expenditure for the purpose of determining total income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act doesn’t attract as unsecured loan availed was repaid in the next financial year through cheque payments to the creditor and bank statement thereof was filed.
ITAT Mumbai held that cost reimbursement received towards providing support services is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards lower commission charged by Jetair Pvt. Ltd. to Jet Airways (India) Ltd. on account of Online Reservation Commission by applying arm’s length price not sustained as the transaction was neither international transaction nor a specified domestic transaction and hence transfer pricing provisions doesn’t apply.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
