Harish P. Mashruwala v. Asst. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In this case, tax sought to be evaded is very clear as the tax rate applicable is 30% whereas the assessee has paid 20%. The tax sought to be evaded was because of the lower rate of tax paid and not because of any addition to the income and, therefore, provisions of Explanation 1 are not applicable. The penalty is imposable under the main provision and there is no need to refer to any Explanations. As regards the merit of the case, the claim of the assessee that amount paid for receiving the gift was from the cash received on surrender of tenancy right is not supported by any evidence.
iPolicy Network (P) Ltd. v ITO (ITAT, Delhi)- If the difference in the ALP price determined by the TPO in international transaction and the revenue received by the assessee does not exceed the safe harbour of -/+ 5 per cent as per proviso (2) of s 92C (pre-amended) no addition can be made to the income of the assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment.
ADIT (IT), Circle 2(2) v Taj TV Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) -The assessee was entitled to interest under s 244A in respect of the excess payment of tax in response to the order passed under s 201 read with s 195, 201(1A) and 250.
ADIT v Fidelity Management Trust Co (ITAT Mumbai) The mere making of a claim, which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars when the assessee had made a bona fide claim relying on the advance ruling pronounced in the case of a sister concern which was reversed later on.
ACIT Vs West Asia Maritime Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) (Third Member)- The contention of the assessing authority that the ship was excluded from the ambit of tonnage tax scheme mainly for the reason that the ship is rendering services only between Indian ports, which would have also been rendered on land by road or rail, is too far-fetched.
Power Pack Conductors v ITO (ITAT Mumbai)-When an assessment is reopened on a particular ground but during the course of assessment being finalised, no addition is made in respect of the ground on which assessment is reopened, other additions cannot be made in the course of such assessment proceedings.
Vipin P. Mehta v ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – ITAT accepts the assessee’s claim that he had the declarations of the payees in the prescribed form before him at the time when the interest was paid, he was not liable to deduct tax therefrom under section 194A. If he was not liable to deduct tax, section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted. There is no other ground taken by the Income-tax authorities to disallow the interest.
Six Continents Hotels Inc. v DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Marketing and reservation contribution received by the assessee, non-resident, owner of a trademark from Indian hotel owners with a corresponding obligation to use it for the agreed purposes are not Royalty or Fees for Included Services and they are in the nature of business income and since the assessee does not have a PE in India, the same are not taxable in India.
Facts (a) that the appellant had disclosed all material facts and (b) raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income,
Dis-allowance on the ground that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds into tax-free income can not be made where the assessee owes ample interest free funds on the date of investment.
