ITAT Surat held that provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are enacted on 15.12.2016 hence taxing addition at higher rate u/s. 115BBE for prior period is not sustainable. Accordingly, AO directed to tax addition at normal rate of tax.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment framed u/s. 147 invalid due to non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act against return filed in response to notice u/s 148. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Agra deletes penalty on State Bank of India for short TDS on LFC with foreign leg, citing bona fide belief and Supreme Court ruling on penalty.
ITAT Mumbai restricts tax addition on share allotment in ITO vs Rajeev R Tulshyan case, citing proportionate rights issue and lack of disproportionate gain.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi held that services rendered under Intra Group Service Agreement do not make available technical knowledge and hence would not fall within the definition of FTS as provided under Article 13(4) of India UK DTAA and hence not taxable in India.
An assessment order passed by AO was quashed on the reason that assessment year was beyond the ten-year outer ceiling limit prescribed by Section 153A. Assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by AO and consequent passing of the Assessment Order. Assessee challenged the issuance of notice u/s 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 on the reasoning that the said notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.
Tribunal had set aside an order by CIT (Appeals) directing AO to recalculate the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) demand under section 194 C as the original demand had already been nullified by the Delhi High Court, making the CIT(A)’s directions untenable and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the High Court’s judgment and basing its decision on a different TDS provision (Section 194C) than the one applied by the AO (Section 194I).
ITAT Delhi rules in Om Prakash Jakhotia case that income must be taxed to the rightful owner, deleting additions based on documents not belonging to assessee.
ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Tata Teleservices on taxability of interest paid to China Development Bank under India-China DTAA Article 11(3).
