ITAT Bangalore held that interest under section 234A cannot be levied when the return of income is filed within the time stipulated in section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere delay in filing of Form No. 67 cannot preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India.
ITAT Delhi held that once the assessee was able to demonstrate that the amount received is in the nature of managerial services, it cannot be treated as FTS on estimated basis. Such receipt not being FTS is not taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without iota of evidence or any cogent reasons is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain is to be taxed in the hands of legal owner of the property who has transferred the property by registering sale deed. Merely because interest of housing loan is claimed by the son of the assessee, it doesn’t make him the owner of the property.
ITAT Chennai held that rice being specified in schedule is covered within the definition of agricultural produce as per provision of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. Accordingly, as per Rule 6DD(e)(i) of the Income Tax Rules the same is exempt from disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act based on documents impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and unjustified as no such material were found during the course of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that as there doesn’t exist any formal/ informal agreement between the assessee and AE to share/ reimburse AMP (Advertising Marketing and Promotion) expenses incurred by the assessee in India. The same cannot be held liable as an international transaction.
ITAT Chennai held that the sale proceeds from the sale of agricultural land cannot be treated as business asset proceeds as the revenue records clearly treats the land as agricultural land and agricultural activities were duly carried out on it.
Held that the land earmarked for public utility purpose in terms of municipal regulations while forming residential lay out, cannot be brought to tax either u/s.47(iii) of the Income Tax Act or u/s.45(2) of the Income Tax Act
