ITAT Delhi held that reasons recorded for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act doesnt disclose that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts and hence assessment order passed thereon are quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of search operation carried out at third party wherein incriminating documents relating to assessee were allegedly found. Hence, assessment was required to be framed u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act and not u/s 144 and hence the said proceedings are quashed.
ITAT Amritsar held that reassessment proceedings initiated on recorded reasons on belief that the specific income has escaped assessment, however, addition on some other income not having any connection with the recorded reason is erred in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that business profits earned by the assessee (non-resident) on account of the reinsurance business have no tax implications in India and existence of dependent agency permanent establishment is wholly tax neutral in India.
ITAT Delhi held that amendments to section 36(1)(va) by Finance Act 2021 are retrospective or prospective is debatable and controversial and any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1).
ITAT Mumbai held that as TPO has gathered financial and functional details of the company by way of using his authority under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act hence the same needs to provide all the gathered information to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that the trade mark license agreement goes to the root of the matter and hence the same cannot be brushed aside while deciding the matter.
ITAT Bangalore held that amendment to section 14A introduced vide Finance Act, 2022 is effective from 1st April 2022. The word for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect.
ITAT Kolkata held that original assessment was made under section 143(3)/147, i.e. scrutiny assessments. Further, there was no fresh information available with the revenue. Hence, reopening of assessments relying on the same information is invalid.
DCIT Vs Sikraft Infotech Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) Software Development expenses claimed by the assessee are in the nature of payment of salaries and allowances to the Engineers, travelling expenses, etc. The assessee is engaged in the process of providing automation, software and hardware engineering. The said expenditure is in the regular course of business […]
