The ITAT held that FTC cannot be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date. It ruled that the filing requirement is procedural and does not extinguish the taxpayer’s substantive right to foreign tax credit.
ITAT Bangalore restored the issue of consultancy fee deduction to the Assessing Officer after noting that additional evidence relating to services rendered had not been examined. The Tribunal directed a fresh review of the expenditure claim in light of the new material.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). The ruling reiterates that an ambiguous penalty notice can invalidate penalty proceedings.
ITAT held that reimbursement of salary costs of seconded employees could not be treated as Fees for Technical Services where the Indian company exercised exclusive control and supervision. The Tribunal found a clear employer-employee relationship during the secondment period and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that shares shown as non-current investments cannot automatically be treated as business expenditure for invoking Section 40A(2)(a). The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
ITAT held that interest earned on deposits kept as security for obtaining business loans was attributable to the cooperative society’s business activity. The income was therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Hyderabad ITAT found contradictions in the TPO’s reasoning for excluding a comparable company due to alleged lack of RPT data. The Tribunal directed fresh verification and recomputation of the RPT filter before deciding whether the company should remain excluded.
The final assessment order was emailed to the assessee after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal held that the delayed communication rendered the assessment time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s objection regarding approval under Section 151 required consideration. The matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee produced documentary evidence supporting the loan, questions regarding the lender’s financial capacity and source of funds required deeper examination. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
