ITAT Delhi held that amount received by the assessee from providing SAP support services and IT support services is not covered within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not taxable in India in absence of permanent establishment.
ITAT Delhi held that the amount of received in the arbitration settlement is related to project office of the assessee company in India. Accordingly, the same is taxable in India.
ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available towards purchase of undivided share of land.
ITAT Mumbai held that while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, the current profit is not to be included to be part of accumulated profit.
ITAT Delhi held that AO cannot put the entire burden on the assessee to show in whose hands the inadvertent receipts shown in Form 26AS has been declared. Assessee is not responsible to explain the recipients of such inadvertent receipts shown in Form No. 26AS.
ITAT Chennai held that profit on transfer of flats to partners is computable in the hands of firm, however, benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act duly available even on transfer of flats to the partners by way of MOU.
ITAT Delhi held that determination of the rent or CAM are separate and the CAM arrangements are not essential and an integral part for use of the premises. Hence, provisions for rent are governed by Section 194I and CAM charges by Section 194C of the Act.
Linklaters LLP Vs Asst Vs CIT (IT)-3(1)(2) Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that remuneration received for providing legal services doesn’t amount to ‘fees for technical services’, where the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, the same is not taxable. Facts- The assessee is a LLP incorporated under the laws […]
ITAT Mumbai held that when assessee submits the sales to be fictitious sales, the onus is on AO to prove that such sales were cash sales as claimed by him. Addition unsustainable as AO failed to provide any evidence of cash sales.
ITAT Delhi held that revision of assessment order unjustifiable as the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
