Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
Mumbai ITAT held that business receipts from an Indian associated enterprise were not taxable in India because the assessee had no Permanent Establishment under the India-UAE DTAA. The Tribunal ruled that mere provision of personnel did not automatically create a PE.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplantation and continuous dialysis treatment.
Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of account. It rejected the Revenue’s view that NPAs classified earlier must necessarily be written off in those earlier years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delivery-based share transactions shown as investments in books could not be treated as business income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld capital gains treatment for both STCG and LTCG.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory reserve fund deposits and co-operative bank accounts qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. It observed that temporarily parking surplus funds does not amount to carrying on a separate investment activity.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession under the agreement to sell, not the later registration date. The property was therefore treated as a long-term capital asset.
The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra payment. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of on-money beyond the registered sale deed value.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not alter book profit under Section 115JB by disallowing losses from alleged penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that such adjustment was not permitted under the statutory explanations to Section 115JB.
