ITAT Delhi held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable in case of inadequate inquiry, in fact, revisional power is invocable only in case of lack of inquiry.
ITAT Bangalore held that insurance charges incurred by the assesse are not attributable to delivery/ export of computer software outside India and hence cannot be included in export turnover.
ITAT Chennai held that amount paid by company on behalf of shareholder which has been subsequently re-paid by the shareholder or his family members either on the same day or within a short period cannot be considered as loan or advance which can be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that business of the assessee is to invest in shares and that the borrowing was for the purpose of business. Accordingly, interest paid on such borrowing is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that lower of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss deserved to be set off against the current year books profit in terms of provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 115JB (2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that payment of IUC Charges is not Fee for Technical Services or Royalty within the meaning of its definition as per section 9(l)(vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that arms length interest rate for loan advanced to foreign subsidiary by Indian company should be computed based on market determined interest rate applicable to currency in which loan has to be repaid.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be allowed to be exercised by the PCIT either for substituting his own opinion for that of the AO or for making a fishing and roving enquiry.
ITAT Raipur held that there is no bar on an individual to join a partnership firm in his representative capacity of a firm being represented by him. In short, partnership firm can be formed by partners represented by their respective firms.
ITAT Delhi held that unless there was specific material collected to rebut the submissions of assessee then merely on basis of inference from the circumstances, the purchase could not have been held to be bogus.
