ITAT Surat held that addition on the basis of un-signed/un-stamped Satakhat, which has not been registered and which is found from CD of computer of person, unsustainable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act without satisfying twin conditions i.e. that the order of the AO must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Pune held that incentives receivable as per the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme 2010 is capital receipt in nature and therefore not taxable.
ITAT Mumbai held that when company issues Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) they incurs a liability to pay a larger amount than what is borrowed and such liability to pay the additional amount is revenue expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that payment towards leasing/ hiring of the equipment will not constitute a royalty under the provisions of the India – Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ITAT Delhi held that deposit of TDS without actual deduction of TDS on the payment made, such TDS amount is to be treated as income of the assessee partaking the character of RPC fee.
Subsequent amendment to section 149, by Finance Act, 2012 which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings and the notice issued under Section 149 was time barred and thus could not have been acted upon. Consequently, the impugned re-assessment order passed in consequence of the illegal notice under Section 148 was a nullity and bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation in respect of the assets shared with the sister concern under the license agreement cannot be claimed u/s. 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi held that profit sharing as provided in MOU cannot be treated as deemed dividend and accordingly outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Exemption under section 11 was allowable and there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) in case the civil contract awarded to a firm in which managing trustee of the trust was the proprietor as the civil contract had been included in the definition of services as per GST laws and also as per Erstwhile Service Tax laws and payment made in under services rendered by the interested persons was not more than the consideration paid for relevant work.
