In present facts of the case, the condonation of delay was allowed for 902 days by placing its reliance over the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was observed that Income-tax law is a complex subject and meeting its compliance requirements is dependent on services by experts of the subject matter. Accordingly the delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed on merits.
ITAT Delhi held that as assessee disclosed all the material facts relating to payment of non-compete fee, assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable.
ITAT Bangalore held that deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act is not available in respect of interest income earned from scheduled banks.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing Revenue Appeal have held that when the amounts received in cash against the sale of flats which have not been recorded in the books of account of the assessee at the time of search and seizure operation and subsequently recorded in the books as advance from customers is nothing but an eye wash to supplement the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash receipts. Therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that transfer of REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) is capital in nature and not liable to tax under business income as the income is offshoot from environmental concern not from offshoot of business concern.
Review of the ITAT Indore verdict in the case of Shri Manish Kumar vs ACIT, where the tribunal directed re-adjudication of a disputed credit card expenditure and ordered the deletion of disallowance initially made by AO.
ITAT Cochin held that prior to 1st June 2015, there was no provision enabling demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E for late filing of TDS/ TCS statement. Accordingly, imposition of late fees prior to 1st June 2015 is bad-in-law.
ITAT Bangalore held that pre-clinical laboratory services rendered by the assessee (non-resident) to its customers in India would not be chargeable to tax in India as the technical services rendered by the affiliates do not “make available” technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process while preparing these reports for their, Indian customers/ clients.
The ITAT Indore supports the principle of natural justice by asking for re-adjudication of the case of R.M. Chemicals Private Limited vs DCIT due to insufficient opportunity provided to the assessee in the initial assessment.
ITAT Delhi advocates for re-adjudication in the case of KMP Expressways Ltd vs ACIT, focusing on the assessee’s status as ‘Assessee in default’ due to non-deposition of TDS in the company’s accounts.
