ITAT Mumbai held that reimbursement of Indian salary and other benefits to the member companies by PII pertaining to all seconded personnel, technical personnel whether posted in India or overseas is not fee for technical services within the ambit of definition of explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Hence, TDS not deductible.
ITAT Mumbai held that action of Pr. CIT invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as order passed by the A.O. does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Delhi held that as per amendment to section 153C of the Income Tax Act the six assessment years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made will come into the purview of block assessment years.
ITAT Hyderabad held that for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Act, it is essential for the assessee to prove that she does not have more than a residential house at the time of claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that officers of DRI are not proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and hence order and show cause notice are not maintainable. Accordingly, addition confirmed thereon is unsustainable.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the export entitlements is an income assessable under the head profits or gains from business or profession as per clause (iiib) and (iiid) to section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT (A) on the basis of certain documents filed by assessee deleted addition without calling for any remand report from AO or without giving any opportunity to AAO to verify documents.
ITAT held that interest paid on late payment of TDS is compensatory in nature and is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.
ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
Jurisdiction of ITAT Bench which can decide appeal is to be determined by location of Assessing Officer. Since, location of AO in instant proceeding is at Mumbai, the appeals, should have been filed before Mumbai Benches and not in Delhi Benches.
