ITAT Mumbai’s decision in case of DCIT vs KEC International Limited, where a 0.6% arm’s length rate was established for corporate guarantee fees, influencing future transfer pricing adjustments.
ITAT Bangalore held that if two out of the three preceding assessment year the comparable has earned profits it cannot be held a persistent loss making company. Hence, persistent loss filter can be applied only if there is loss in three successive assessment years.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that membership fees paid for a key person of a company are allowable as business expenditure. The case involved the disallowance of club membership fees paid to Cricket Club of India.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the interest subsidy received under the technology upgradation fund scheme is considered a capital receipt, even if it is credited against interest expenditure in the books of account.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
Ignorance of tax obligations on income earned from a partnership doesn’t excuse late filing of Income Tax Returns. ITAT Mumbai upholds Section 271F penalty in a recent case involving an advocate and his late ITR filing.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee being non-resident, income has been invested in India and not arisen in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that the employer has to remit both the contributions (employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution) to the Provident Fund within 15 days from the close of the month for which the employees earned their salary i.e., Salary payable.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice by AO in the status of ‘Local Authority’ and assessment framed in different status i.e. in the name of ‘Artificial Juridical Person’ is bad in law and hence liable to be cancelled.
ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed addition on account of bogus long term capital gains from transaction in penny stock observing that mere filing documentary evidences did not discharge onus cast on the assessee to prove genuineness of the transaction.
