ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management to be carried more effectively is revenue in nature even if advantage may endure for an indefinite future.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Raj Kumar Mangla vs. ACIT(Inv Circle), Gurgaon held that when a clear order transferring the jurisdiction is passed by a competent authority in law the AO from whose jurisdiction transfer was ordered can no longer assume his jurisdiction over the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Goldfilled Mercantile Company vs. DCIT held that when the assessee shown lesser capital gain in its return of income under a bonafide belief of a deduction from it but paid due taxes then the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no intention
AO’s opinion that since TDS made u/s. 194-I, incomes are to be assessed under head ‘income from house property’ can not be accepted. Moreover, even if assessee has let out property but, when the Memorandum of Association permits the business of letting out of properties as such, the income cannot be brought to tax as ‘income from house property’
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Emblem Fashion Wear Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the assessee did not obtain approval, either pre or post facto, from the competent authority, as required by law. Also the assessee did not apply for any extension of time.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ITO vs. M/s. First American Securities Pvt. Ltd. that the interest expenditure is to be treated as revenue in nature because the assessee is an investment company. It is very specifically mentioned in the objects of the MOU that assessee company is to make strategic investment in the business entities
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Addl CIT (TDS), ITAT Visakhapatnam) Even if there is no PAN, if the deductor has deducted TDS as per provisions of sec 192, Section 206AA does not over-ride section 192 in terms of the requirement of “at the rates specified in the relevant provisions of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held in case of ITO v Shri Sameer Jasuja the property has been gifted by the person to his wife, then Assessee will entitled to the exemption u/s 54F if he is left with one property. It further held that section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee.
DCIT Vs M/s Ansh Intermediate Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) The addition cannot be sustained only for the simple reason that these shareholder companies have not responded in first round of commission.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of OSRAM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Article 2(1) of the India Singapore tax treaty provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Once it is concluded that education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge
