Held that the interest granted by the reference Court u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of possession of land till the date of judgment of High Court is an accretion of the value of the land acquired, not chargeable to tax.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the requirement of both the issuance and service of such notice upon the assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Order passed is liable to be quashed on account of non-service of notice u/s 147/148.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee has merely got the license to use the software for its daily business requirement and has never owned the same. Further, such expense was used for business purpose on yearly rent basis it has not given any enduring benefit. Hence, such expense are revenue in nature.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from its Indian subsidiary towards IT and SAP charges cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India – Portugal DTAA. Accordingly, additions unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that statue doesn’t empower the Assessing Officer to withdraw or modify or substitute the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act with another assessment order.
Review the landmark ITAT ruling of Lifeline Medicare Hospitals Private Limited Vs CIT, where a notice levying fees for late filing of TDS prior to June 1, 2015 was set aside.
Read the full text of the ex-parte order issued by ITAT Mumbai in the case of Smt. Dakuben Saremalji Sancheti Nadol Charitable Trust vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The order reinstates the appeal to CIT(A) for assessment year 2020-21, considering Covid and software issues.
ITAT Mumbai declares that National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) cannot adjudicate appeals already disposed of by CIT(A). This landmark ruling also directed the Department to bear the litigation cost. Read our analysis here.
The ITAT Bangalore rules that interest under section 234C against EY Global Delivery Services should be levied on returned income, not assessed income. Read the full analysis of this significant tax ruling.
ITAT Delhi holds in the Sabharwal Food Industries Vs DCIT case that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because a claim was not accepted. Discover more about this landmark ruling.
