The ITAT by relying upon the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench, wherein co-ordinate Bench followed the Judgment of Jurisdictional High Court have observed that 15% of the revenue relating to bookings made from India being attributable to the taxpayers PE in India after considering the nature and extent of activities in India and abroad and assets employed & risk assumed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of loose sheet alone without any other corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that it is an undisputed fact that loan is borrowed for the purpose of project and the said project constitutes stock-in-trade. Accordingly, interest expenditure cannot be disallowed by capitalizing it to work in progress. Such interest expenditure is revenue in nature.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is a mere step through entity which collected the royalty and licence fees on behalf of its member and thereafter distributed the net income to the concerned members. Such distributed income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee
ITAT Jaipur held that filing of Form 67, for claiming Foreign Tax Credit, is a procedural requirement and violation of procedural norms doesn’t extinguish the substantive right of claiming the credit of Foreign Tax.
ITAT Chennai held that capital gain exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act includes investment in purchase or construction of one or more than one residential house
G-Trans Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). In his opinion of Ld. CIT(A) this is an incurable defect. Ld. CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is […]
Time City Real Estates (India) Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Lucknow) In the present case, ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer had carried out sufficient enquiries and this is not even a case of lack of enquiry. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. has held that for assumption of jurisdiction […]
ITAT Cuttack held that scientific method of calculation is done and the pay revision is approved, hence the provision for the pay revision is an unascertained liability nor the liability does not crystalise.
ITAT Bangalore held that AO cannot go beyond the profits as per profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act except in the manner provided in Explanation 1 to section 115JB. therefore the action of the AO to make the adjustment for the disallowance u/s. 14A to the book profits u/s. 115JB is not tenable.
