The Tribunal found that subscription payments were made for using copyrighted articles, not for using copyright itself. Hence, the income was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA with the USA.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the AO failed to record any allegation of the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reaffirms that reopening beyond four years requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 147.
ITAT Mumbai held that benefit under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for inadvertent filing of Form 10-IB in place of Form 10-IC since the same is technical lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is sustained and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since AO took one of the possible views while allowing claim of deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai set aside CIT(A)’s order for lack of compliance with Rule 46A in a case involving alleged bogus penny stock transactions under Aarya Global Shares.
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act merely because of inadvertent error of claiming exemption u/s. 10(46) instead of 10(23C)(iv) is not justifiable. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) granted.
Denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for non-furnishing of Form 3CL did not preclude normal deduction u/s 35(1)(i) and depreciation u/s 32, as the research was related to the assessee’s business.
The ITAT Mumbai held that income already taxed in the hands of a trust cannot be taxed again in the hands of its beneficiary, deleting an addition of ₹1.24 crore.
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and liability under section 201 operated independently, and assessee could not escape TDS liability merely by making a partial disallowance in its return.
