ITAT Mumbai held that no additions or disallowances can be made u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act in absence of any incriminating material found during the search on a third person.
Dhanraj Chhipa Vs PCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was any enquiry and a possible view is taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner […]
ITAT Delhi held that there is no copyright on live events, and therefore, the fee received towards live transmission cannot be taxed as royalty in terms of Section 9(l)(vi).
Dhanwan Leasing and Finance Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Section 68 of the Act provides that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in […]
ITAT Delhi held that AO drew belief on the reasons which were later found to be totally non-existent. Such defect in the reasons cannot be ascribed as a mere technical irregularity and consequently defect cannot be cured by applying Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that income earned from offshore supply of escalators and elevators is not taxable in India as assesse didn’t carried out any operations in India.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010 cannot be given retrospective effect.
ITAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 207 of the Income Tax Act, an individual resident of 60 years or more and not having income chargeable under the head ‘profit and gains’ of business or profession is not required to pay the advance tax.
ITAT upheld additions towards cash seized during search proceedings as unexplained money, under Section 69A when assessee could not establish source for amount found.
Hyderabad ITAT held that gift of house to father just prior to sale of land was a camouflage to claim Section 54F deduction as Assessee owned two house properties
