The ITAT Bangalore rules that interest under section 234C against EY Global Delivery Services should be levied on returned income, not assessed income. Read the full analysis of this significant tax ruling.
ITAT Delhi holds in the Sabharwal Food Industries Vs DCIT case that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because a claim was not accepted. Discover more about this landmark ruling.
ITAT Bangalore revives case of Comfortable Abode Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, directing re-adjudication citing lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee. Learn more about the case and its potential implications.
Analyze the case of DCIT vs. Software One Pte Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) regarding the taxation of software sales and royalty. Understand the distinction between copyright ownership and distribution rights, as well as the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Engineering Analysis case.
Explore the case of Western Geco International Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) and decision regarding exclusion of reimbursement of service tax from gross turnover for computation of taxable income under Section 44BB of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance as per section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act sustained as amount of employees’ share of contribution of PF/ESI not paid within due date stipulated in the respective Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that the disclosure made by the tax auditor in audit report in Form 3CD about the ‘Details of contributions received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va)’ would now become indicative of a disallowance, hence provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act would get attracted.
ITAT Delhi held that Common Area Maintenance charges (CAM Charges) paid by the assessee are liable for 2% TDS u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act and not at 10% u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition unsustainable as assessee has proved the three ingredients engraved in section 68 of the Act and proved the satisfactory nature of the loan transactions. On the otherhand, AO has not brought any contrary material to show that loan received is bogus or accommodation entries.
ITAT Delhi held that the receipts from centralised service income are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)/ Fees for included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA DTAA.
